Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

TRADE

Ordered,
That there be laid before this House Statistics relating to Overseas Trade of the United Kingdom for each month during the year 1972.—[Mr. John Davies.]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Ghanaian Frigate

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the outcome of his attempts to sell to a Commonwealth country or foreign power the Ghanaian frigate

originally built for President Nkrumah, which has been lying in the Clyde for many years.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Joseph Godber): As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, told the House on 21st October, arrangements are in hand to transfer ownership of the vessel to Her Majesty's Government.—[Vol. 823; c. 178.]

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is now three years ago that I alluded to this vessel as "a floating gin palace" and suggested that, in view of the fact that the hulk and much of the vessel was sound, leaving aside the Nkrumah embellishments, it should be used for naval purposes instead of being left to lie rotting in the Clyde? What can my right hon. Friend say to bring matters up to date?

Mr. Godber: The position was that, until we agreed to take it over from Ghana a few months ago, it was the responsibility of the Ghanaian Government. Now that we have accepted responsibility for it, it will be for Her Majesty's Government to dispose of it or to use it in the way that they think fit. In view of my hon. Friend's comment about it being a gin palace, he will realise the problems that arise in combining a fighting ship and a gin palace. This is not a requirement of many navies.

Mr. Rankin: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any idea about the


use to which the Government might put this vessel?

Sir G. Nabarro: For fishery protection.

Mr. Godber: That is a question that the hon. Gentleman will have to put to my noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence. It is not for me to answer it.

European Economic Community

Sir J. Rodgers: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to invite the enlarged European Economic Community to have its European Parliament headquarters in London with buildings donated by the British Government.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): None, Sir.

Sir J. Rodgers: May I first congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the successful outcome of his recent negotiations? While thanking him for his answer, as far as it goes, may I ask him whether he does not agree that it is right and proper that the institutions connected with the Common Market should be situated in the capitals of the Common Market countries and whether he also agrees that a disproportionate, if not monopolistic, position has been attained by the capitals of the Six in terms of the headquarters of other international organisations such as U.N.E.S.C.O., O.E.C.D., N.A.T.O., F.A.O., etc., and that it is time that Britain showed her Europeanisation by offering to provide a building for the enlarged European Parliament? Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that, if he is requested by the European parliamentarians, he will make that generous and sensible gesture?

Mr. Rippon: At present, the sessions of the Parliament are divided between Strasbourg and Luxembourg. These arrangements appear satisfactory to the present members of that Parliament. I am sure that we do not want to disturb existing arrangements which are working satisfactorily. When we are a member of the Community, I hope that the Community may feel that some of its institutions might be sited here. But that is all a matter for the future and a matter for general agreement.

Mr. Cronin: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not take too seriously the congratulations of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers) on his recent negotiations. Will he accept that a large proportion of the fishing community feels that it has been sold out?

Mr. Rippon: I hope to make a statement on that later and to satisfy the hon. Gentleman that no one has been sold out.

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he proposes to sign the Treaty of Accession to the Common Market.

Mr. Rippon: We hope the necessary preparations will be completed in order that the Treaty may be signed in the middle of January.

Mr. Marten: As the vote on 28th October was taken subject to the agreement on fisheries, if any, can my right hon. and learned Friend assure us that the Treaty of Accession will not be signed until the fisheries agreement has been debated and voted upon in this House? In replying, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will not say that this is a matter for the Leader of the House, because I am asking about the signing of the Treaty of Accession.

Mr. Rippon: We have, as I have to report to the House later, reached a satisfactory settlement on the fisheries problem acceptable to ourselves, to Denmark and to the Republic of Ireland. In these circumstances we are going ahead with the preparations for signing the Treaty.

Mr. Healey: I appreciate that we shall be discussing the statement by the right hon. and learned Gentleman at the end of Questions, but taking up his hon. Friend's point, he will recall that he gave the House certain assurances on 25th October regarding the situation concerning fisheries. These assurances have not been met by the agreement which he reached on Saturday with members of the Six. That being the case, will he not agree that the House must have an opportunity to discuss and debate the fisheries agreement before the Government sign the Treaty of Accession?

Mr. Rippon: I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would wait to hear


what the agreement was before deciding that it was unsatisfactory in any respect. However, if he listens to my statement, and then recalls what I told the House were our objectives after my statements on 11th November and 1st December, he will see that we have reached an agreement fully in accord with those statements.

Mr. Milne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's attitude and policy in relation to entry into the European Economic Community arising from the latest negotiations, in particular stating what common attitudes were taken together with Norway and Denmark on fisheries and on the future of European Free Trade Association.

Mr. Rippon: I would ask the hon. Member to await the statement which, with permission, I shall make later today on the weekend's discussions in Brussels.

Mr. Milne: While I will certainly await the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement on the fishery negotiations with interest, may I point out that my Question also referred to the future of the European Free Trade Association and that we are entitled to a reply on that point?

Mr. Rippon: There is no problem about that in the context of the negotiations we have had on fisheries regulations. The position as to the E.F.T.A. negotiations are as I have repeatedly stated in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Robert Edwards—next Question.

Mr. Milne: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that by—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have not called the hon. Member for a second supplementary.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement of his most recent discussions on the fishing grounds dispute in the European Economic Community.

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest position in the continuing discussions with the

European Economic Community regarding their common fisheries policy; what co-operation he is now pursuing with other applicants and with Norway in particular in this matter; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Rippon: I would ask the hon. Members to await the statement which I shall, with permission, make later this afternoon.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress of British negotiations to join the European Economic Community.

Mr. Rippon: I would ask my hon. Friend to await the statement which, with permission, I shall make later today on the weekend's discussions in Brussels.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Trusting to your benevolence, Mr. Speaker, I shall take that course.

Rhodesia

Mr Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requests he made for the release from detention of Mr. Joshua Nkomo and the Reverend Ndabaningi Sithole during the course of his negotiations with the illegal régime and Mr. Smith in Rhodesia.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): The substance of my discussions in Salisbury must remain confidential. Mr. Nkomo's case is covered by the section in the White Paper about detainees. The Reverend Sithole however is in a different category as he is serving a prison sentence.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Is that reply not a supreme example of the right hon. Gentleman's propensity for appeasing Fascist régimes? How could any reasonable basis of assessing African opinion be reached without the release of these two gentlemen? Is it not a fact that Mr. Nkomo has been unlawfully detained for many years, and that the Reverend Sit-hole was punished by a bigoted court without any real responsibility?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will keep an open


mind. The important thing is that these gentlemen should make their opinions known to the Commission of Acceptability.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Would the Foreign Secretary accept that to obtain free and proper discussions before the test of acceptability—and to show the feeling of both Governments towards a settlement—a general amnesty for all those detained, under whatever law, should be made available, to show good will?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That was not a condition made at the time of the attempted settlement on "Fearless". As far as the detainees are concerned, the hon. Gentleman will perhaps have noticed that some 54 detainees have been let out in the last month and the rest will be inquired into by a tribunal.

Mr. Hattersley: The Foreign Secretary said—and this is roughly the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite and on this side of the House—that the important thing is for Mr. Sithole's views to be given to the Commission. When in Salisbury, did the right hon. Gentleman receive any assurance, which he could repeat to the House, that Mr. Sithole will get this opportunity and that no barrier will be raised in his way to giving evidence?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I cannot say in what way Mr. Sithole will be able to express his opinion. He sent me a long memorandum and Mr. Mugabe, his right-hand man, came to explain Mr. Sithole's views.

Mr. Healey: I must press the right hon. Gentleman on this. A moment ago he said that Mr. Sithole would be free to give his views to the Commission. Most people who know the situation in Rhodesia will feel that it is indispensable that he should be free. Surely the right hon. Gentleman sought some assurances from Mr. Smith on this? If he has not done so, will he do so immediately?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: There is no doubt that Mr. Sithole will be able to express his opinion, as he did to me, but in exactly what form I would not commit myself now. It will be for the Commission to satisfy itself that it has his opinion.

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communications he has received from leaders of African Governments, and Africans inside Rhodesia, relating to his announcement on 25th November, 1971, of a proposed settlement with the illegal régime in Rhodesia.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Two messages have so far been received from African leaders in reply to a message which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sent them when the proposals were announced. None has been received from Africans inside Rhodesia.

Mr. Whitehead: In view of the reported widespread mistrust of the Pearce Commission, as at present constituted, by Africans inside Rhodesia and responsible African leaders throughout the continent, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman when he will be in a position to announce additional names? Can he say whether one of them will be African?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have said that I will announce the names very soon.

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the commission to test acceptability of the settlement proposals will start work in Rhodesia.

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the composition and timetable of the commission set up to ascertain whether the proposals for granting independence to Rhodesia are acceptable to all sections of the population.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As regards the composition of the Commission, I am considering the possibility of appointing an additional Deputy Chairman or Deputy Chairmen, and the House will be informed as soon as a decision is reached, which I hope will be very soon. On timing, I understand that given the complex planning involved, it is unlikely that the Commission will start its work in Rhodesia until the New Year.

Mr. Lane: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that information, could I ask him to make it clear that the Commission will do its work with complete


thoroughness, with no pressure of deadlines and with ample time for the proposals to be clearly explained to Africans in Rhodesia?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: This is most important, and the Commission can take as long as it feels is necessary.

Mr. Strang: When the Foreign Secretary appointed Lord Pearce to be Chairman of the Commission was he aware that he was the only judge to dissent from the Privy Council's recommendation that the Smith régime be made illegal? How does he expect a Commission headed by such a man to be acceptable to educated Africans in Rhodesia?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: There is no question about Lord Pearce's impartiality in this matter. He is impartial and will be acceptable.

Mr. Healey: Would the right hon. Gentleman clear up an uncertainty which many hon. Members will have about the nature of the Commission? He referred to a number of commissioners and one or two additional Vice-Chairmen. He also told the House that there was no particular importance about the requirement that the report would be signed only by the Chairman and Vice-Chairmen, thereby implying that all commissioners would sign the report. Is this the case, and will the Commission be a substantial one, consisting in all—Vice-Chairmen and commissioners together—of 15 to 20 persons?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Lord Pearce feels that about 16—which would roughly make the number the hon. Gentleman suggests—would be necessary to fulfil the task. The report will probably be signed by the five.

Miss Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in full the details of the discussions between himself and Mr. Joshua Nkomo.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No, Sir. Like my other discussions with African leaders in Salisbury, my discussion with Mr. Nkomo was confidential.

Miss Lestor: Is the Foreign Secretary not aware that any secrecy about discussions with the detained African leaders would be very bad indeed when discussing

any test of acceptability? Would he therefore comment whether we would be right in assuming that the report in the Observer of 28th November by Colin Smith about the discussions with Mr. Nkomo was an accurate report?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As for the accuracy or otherwise of the conversations I had with Mr. Nkomo, the hon. Lady will remember that I saw over 100 Africans and groups of Africans, and it would be impossible to disclose one conversation without disclosing them all.

Mr. Milne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will arrange for representatives of the major Rhodesian African political parties led by Joshua Nkomo and the Reverend N. Sithole to attend future Commonwealth conferences as observers in order to report on developments in Rhodesia arising from the agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Smith régime.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It is not within the British Government's power to make such arrangements.

Mr. Milne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a disappointing reply since it closes one of the main avenues to African opinion following the take-over by the Smith régime? Do not the coloured peoples of Rhodesia need protection by the British Government so that the Commonwealth and world opinion may be informed about what is happening in Rhodesia after the settlement?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: This must be a matter for the Commonwealth generally to consider, if it wishes to do so. It is not a matter for Her Majesty's Government alone.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the United Nations have agreed to ask two imprisoned Africans to address them on the Rhodesian problem, he will seek to persuade Mr. Ian Smith to permit these men freedom and facilities to travel to the United Nations offices.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The White Paper makes it clear that agreement was reached on the release of a number of


detainees and the consideration by a tribunal of the release of others. Whilst the Rhodesian authorities are aware of the Security Council proposal, we are not in a position to require them to allow the persons concerned to visit New York.

Mr. Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that my Question refers to a request by the United Nations made since the White Paper? Since the Foreign Secretary and Lord Goodman appear to have a lot of influence with Mr. Smith, could not either he or Lord Goodman fly to see Mr. Smith to try to persuade him to allow these gentlemen to go to address the United Nations? Since these gentlemen have neither committed nor been found guilty of any crime, is this not the least the right hon. Gentleman can do?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Rhodesian authorities have been informed, and I intend to take no further action.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what official communications he has received from other members of the Commonwealth to his proposals for a settlement of the Rhodesian problem.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We have received one formal communication from a member of the Commonwealth on this subject and have had a number of informal contacts. The content of these exchanges is confidential.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he intends to invite official comment from members of the Commonwealth and, if he does, will he take the trouble to circulate the official replies in the OFFICIAL REPORT? Is he aware that from the evidence we can adduce, from newspapers and other sources, the bulk of the African members of the Commonwealth and the coloured members of the Commonwealth are emphatically against the proposals put before the House?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: My right hon. Friend took the trouble to write a letter to all the heads of the Governments in the Commonwealth, describing the proposals. We had only two official reactions to this. It is up to any Commonwealth

leader to reply to my right hon. Friend's letter at any time.

Mr. Edward Taylor: If my right hon. Friend accedes to the request of the hon. Gentleman to publish the reactions of the African political leaders, will he at the same time make it clear whether such leaders observe the five principles in their own countries?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that we can safely leave this matter to the leaders of the Commonwealth Governments.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that all the evidence supplied to the Pearce Commission will be published in full in the report?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That must be for the Commission to decide.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make it his policy to seek to arrange for the United Nations Organisation to take over Southern Rhodesia as a trust territory under Articles 75 and 81 of the United Nations Charter, in the event of the test of acceptability resulting in the rejection of the proposed settlement.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Pearce Commission have to ascertain whether the present proposals are acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. I do not want to prejudice their task by anticipating a particular result of their work.

Mr. Murray: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that his answer does not pass my test of acceptability? Does he not see that the test of acceptability in Rhodesia will be a farce if the participants are not informed of the Government's alternative policy to a settlement with Smith?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The hon. and learned Gentleman asked me before I went to Rhodesia to make a forecast of what I would do if my mission failed. I decline to make a forecast now.

Mr. Tapsell: On the subject of the test of acceptability, does my right hon. Friend expect to be in a position to tell the House what the full membership of the Pearce Commission will be before we


rise for Christmas, and will he say whether reports emanating from Salisbury, and which appeared in the Sunday Telegraph yesterday, saying that it is in his mind now to appoint 14 commissioners, are correct? Or is this a confusion between commissioners and assessors?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think there may be some confusion, because the whole lot are really known as commissioners. There will be five and I hope very soon to be able to announce the two additional names. On what is known as the Commission on the Test of Acceptability I think there will be 16 further members whom Lord Pearce would like to have.

Mr. Healey: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman in this connection whether he will arrange for hon. Members to be given copies of the English text of the document purporting to explain the meaning of the Commission in simple terms and which I understand the Government are preparing also in African languages for the Commission's use?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes.

South Africa (Arrested British Subjects)

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what protests he has made concerning the arrest of 71 British subjects by the South African Government during the last year; and if he will list the criminal charges on which 55 of these British subjects have been detained.

Mr. Godber: There are normally no grounds for protesting in regard to the arrest in a foreign country of a British subject who is charged with having committed an offence under the law of that country. We have as necessary reminded the South African Government that when a United Kingdom citizen is arrested we expect him to be charged and brought to trial or speedily released. I will with permission circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the other details which the hon. Member has requested.
As he will see, they cover a very wide range of which theft and fraud amount to well over half of those involved.

Mr. Jenkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether those seven arrested on political charges have been brought to trial and charged and, if not, what protests he has made in this connection?

Mr. Godber: Of the seven, three were charged and convicted and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. After one month they were released and deported. One of the other four is the Dean of Johannesburg, and there is the question of an appeal at present. The other three who have not yet been charged are concerned with matters on which we have made representations, but these are more recent arrests.

Following is the information:

BREAKDOWN OF THE CRIMINAL CHARGES ON WHICH 55 BRITISH SUBJECTS HAVE BEEN CHARGED IN SOUTH AFRICA DURING THE LAST YEAR (FROM 1ST DECEMBER,1970).


Theft
22


Illegal Immigration
7


Possession of dangerous weapons
2


Housebreaking and attempted theft
1


Causing a disturbance
1


Assault … …
1


Fraud
10


Attempted rape
1


Breach of Immorality Act
1


Contempt of Court
1


Rape/Incest
2


Debt
3


Manslaughter
1


Attempted Murder
1


Abducting a Minor
1


Total
55

Persian Gulf

Mr. Robert Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the arrangements made by Her Majesty's Government in the form of a Treaty with the Sultan of Muscat and Oman, following British withdrawal from the Gulf.

Mr. Godber: No fresh treaty was called for.
A Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation was concluded between the United Kingdom and the Sultanate on 20th December, 1951, and remains in force. Its validity has not been affected by the recent termination of our special treaty relations with Bahrain, Qatar and the Trucial States, or by the plans for


the withdrawal of British forces from the Gulf.

Mr. Edwards: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Sultan of Muscat and Oman, at a recent Press conference, in the presence of French journalists, stated that he had signed a secret treaty with Her Majesty's Government to last for 30 years, regulating the maintenance of British military bases in that country? Is he aware that this has already been reported in the French Press? Is he further aware that there has been a civil war in that country for the last 16 years and that many hundreds of political prisoners are still detained without trial? Is it not time that we withdrew our support for this unrepresentative hereditary ruler and supported the people of Muscat and Oman, who want a democratic régime?

Mr. Godber: This is an independent Government with whom Britain is in a treaty relationship, and I have explained what that relationship is. I know nothing of the Press conference to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but if he would like to send me details I would be happy to look into it.

Mr. Edwards: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Tanzania

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Tanzanian Government in respect of that provision of the Exchange Control Ordinances which can compel British subjects working in Tanzania to sell assets in Great Britain in exchange for Tanzanian currency.

Mr. Godber: None, Sir. The existing law on this subject remains the same as it was before independence.

Mr. King: Does that not mean that if a British subject is in Tanzania for 300 days and thereafter he were to inherit, say, £1,000 in this country he could be compelled to convert that money to Tanzanian shillings, which would be uncashable in Great Britain and possibly irremovable from Tanzania? Is that not

an intolerable position, about which representations ought to be made?

Mr. Godber: The difficulty is that the present arrangements are those which were enforced before Tanzania became independent and therefore I do not see how we can make representations for changes in a law which we tolerated in those circumstances. The position about the 300-day rule is that this is a new provision suggested in a proposed law which has not yet been promulgated. I am told, however, that the Bank of Tanzania will still retain its existing discretion to define residential status in certain special circumstances and that might apply in the case the hon. Gentleman raised, although without further details I could not say definitely.

Middle East

Mr. David Watkins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Common. wealth Affairs what representations he made to the Israeli Foreign Minister during his recent talks with him, for Israel to reconsider its rejection of Ambassador Jarring's request made earlier this year, for a specific commitment of Israeli withdrawal from occupation of the territory of neighbouring countries in the light of four power talks on the Middle East.

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning his recent talks with the Israeli Foreign Minister, Mr. Abba Eban.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: My talks with Mr. Eban naturally centred on the situation in the Middle East, but we also discussed a number of other subjects of mutual interest. The details must remain confidential.

Mr. Watkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman continue to take every possible opportunity to impress upon the Government of Israel that its continuing occupation and colonisation of the territory of neighbouring countries is the major obstacle to a peaceful settlement in the Middle East?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The most practical thing to do is to try to get discussions going between Egypt and Israel, in particular under Resolution 242. As


long as the momentum of talks can be maintained under that Resolution, and possibly speeded up, that is the best hope of peace.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Is it not clear that Israel, perhaps like India, is not prepared to accept paper guarantees and has always welcomed the prospect of direct talks with her Arab neighours?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That is true and it is the Israeli case that negotiations ought to start, but we all know the limitations to the possibilities of those negotiations. I was quite convinced after having been to Cairo and seeing Mr. Eban that the momentum of these discussions must, in one way or another, be stepped up and under a third party. The best third party anyone has been able to think of so far is Dr. Jarring.

Mr. Heffer: Is it not clear that Israel is obviously deeply suspicious as a result of what happened on the previous occasion when the United Nations troops were withdrawn very quickly? Is it not also clear that Israel really does want peace and has made it absolutely clear that she must have peace with guaranteed frontiers to ensure her existence as a State?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: There have been a number of offers of international guarantees and I think that we could in any new international guarantees avoid the dangers of the past, for example by making a decision on withdrawal unanimous.

Mr. Mayhew: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Egyptians have now given all the undertakings requested of them by Ambassador Jarring and by the British and American Governments? Is it not plain that if war in the Middle East is to be avoided pressure must be brought to bear on Israel sooner or later to make her contribution?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think it is true that Egypt and the Arab countries want to live at peace with Israel. I was satisfied of that. Nevertheless, the deadlock remains, and the practical thing is to try to find a way out of the deadlock by starting talks with a much greater momentum than they have had up to now.

Development Divisions

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has yet decided on the places at which he proposes to establish three new development divisions overseas and the total number of staff proposed; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Richard Wood): I cannot yet say where the new divisions will be. I hope to be in a position to do so very soon and to give the other information for which the hon. Member asks.

Mr. Pavitt: The whole House will welcome the extension of the Department's work in this way. When the extra divisions are full established, will the right hon. Gentleman consider how they may serve the high commissions and embassies in the area in order to encourage a great deal of activity from the other side of the right hon. Gentleman's Department?

Mr. Wood: I feel that the future development divisions will have to operate largely as the existing development divisions have done, namely, in close conjunction with embassies and high commissions in their areas, in order to maximise the effectiveness of their work.

India (Overseas Aid)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the recent visit to India of the Minister for Overseas Aid.

Mr. Wood: I returned to England on 1st December after spending two weeks in or near Bombay, Delhi and Calcutta, at the invitation of the Government of India.
I was able to see examples of the developments in agriculture, and I looked at both light and heavy industry, at some of the educational institutions which we are assisting, and at urban improvement work in Calcutta. I had useful talks with a number of Ministers about the continuing rôle of British aid, and I signed two loan agreements. I also discussed, both with Ministers and with business men, the opportunities for foreign private investment.
Finally, in West Bengal, I saw some of the refugee camps, and the work of voluntary organisations from Britain within them. This has given me a clearer idea of some of the problems that will have to be solved when the fighting is over.

Mr. Pavitt: In planning his forward programmes, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the tremendous amount which India has given in order to deal with the refugee problem, which the right hon. Gentleman has seen? Although India still ranks high in the total amount of aid given, because of its large population and large area which has to be extended, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the amount is even larger to deal with the fresh problems which he has seen?

Mr. Wood: I shall have very much in mind in the next few months all the considerations which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I appreciate the continuing need not only for development in India but for the relief of the refugees, whether they remain in West Bengal or in East Pakistan, in the next few months.

Mrs. Hart: In considering this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a new factor seems to have entered into the situation, and that is the extraordinary and regrettable decision of the United States Government to cease providing economic aid to India? In my view, this is an added reason for calling a meeting of the India Aid Consortium.

Mr. Wood: As I understand it, the United States Government have suspended that portion of their promised aid to India which has not been committed. My view is that we should continue to give India the aid which we have pledged. Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Lady and I are in full agreement.

Commonwealth Development Corporation

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which countries outside the Commonwealth the Commonwealth Development Corporation now has projects; what have been the principal financial problems encountered in taking on projects in non-Commonwealth countries; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Wood: The Commonwealth Development Corporation has projects in Cameroon and in Indonesia and others are being considered in Ethiopia and Thailand. The two main financial difficulties encountered by the Corporation in non-Commonwealth countries concern its tax position and the high cost of commencing operations in new countries.

Mr. Judd: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he would also agree that one of the difficulties about the Corporation's effectiveness outside the Commonwealth is the very high interest rates at which money is made available by the Treasury in this country? Is there any prospect of seeing favourable rates of interest charged on money to the Corporation for projects outside the Commonwealth?

Mr. Wood: This is a matter which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we have been considering. I shall certainly take note of what he said because I, too, am very anxious, as, I believe, is the hon. Member, that the C.D.C. should widen its operations in the developing world generally.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Before considering an extension of the corporation's activities in Indonesia, would my hon. Friend get a satisfactory settlement with the Government of Indonesia of outstanding claims to compensation for British assets seized?

Mr. Wood: This is another question and outside the proper field of my responsibility.

Persian Gulf

Mr. Mather: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the latest position in the Persian Gulf.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement about the situation in the Gulf.

Mr. Godber: I have nothing to add to the statement made to the House by my right hon. Friend on 6th December.—[Vol. 827, c. 944–6.]

Mr. Mather: Would my right hon. Friend say whether it is intended to establish a base to assist the Union in planning its defence forces and, if so, whether this base can be used by British troops in rotation?

Mr. Godber: Yes. There is a proposal for British forces to train in the area at regular intervals. That has been arranged in accordance with the plan outlined by my right hon. Friend in his statement in March.

Mr. Kaufman: In view of the irrational confiscation by Libya of the oil company following recent events in the Gulf, would the Government now desist from demeaning themselves—complete with Lawrence of Arabia headgear—by courting the irrational tyrannies and, instead, adopt a sensible policy with the one stable democracy in the area?

Mr. Godber: I am not clear what the hon. Gentleman is asking us to do. We inherited from his party a difficult problem in the Gulf area which my right hon. Friend, with great patience, has brought to what I believe is a satisfactory and honourable conclusion under which all the States in the Gulf, both Arab and non-Arab, can, I think, look forward to a future of stability, as a result of what Britain has done. I would have thought it would commend itself to the hon. Member.

Mr. Walters: Would my right hon. Friend continue to pursue British interests in the area, and in this connection would he make representations to the Government of Kuwait, who have always had a very moderate policy, to try to persuade them that it must be in the interests of Kuwait as well as of other countries which want to see stability in the Gulf that good relations between Iran and Kuwait should be preserved, and, at the same time, indicate how British foreign policy recently has been imaginative in the Middle East and, therefore, how ridiculous it is for countries to discriminate against us and not the United States?

Mr. Godber: Yes, I agree very much with what my hon. Friend has been saying, and we would want to see in the States in the Gulf the best possible relationships between one another and with us. I believe that there is a community of interests between the Arab

States there and Iran, which we have been trying to bring about and foster. It has been the whole purpose of our policy to ensure stability which, I believe, will be achieved by the arrangements which we have helped to establish.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Going back to the original Question, is it the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Gulf, or just the Gulf?

Mr. Godber: One Question referred to the Gulf and the other to the Persian Gulf. I am quite happy to rest on the Gulf.

Mr. James Johnson: Was the settlement quite honourable, as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested? He is aware—is he not?—that there were some people shot and some killed during the time when we were—shall we say?—accountable for law and order. Is compensation being paid to the families of those who were shot?

Mr. Godber: The hon. Member refers to an unfortunate incident on the Greater Tunb Island, which we regret very much, but, although, as he says, we were responsible, for it is true that Britain's responsibility did not end technically until 24 hours later, we have made it quite clear that we did not think that that was possible or practicable, when we were at the end of the period of our protection, as we explained to the Ruler of Ras al Khaimah. While we regret it, we cannot accept responsibility for it.

European Security Conference

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the latest initiatives taken by Her Majesty's Government to secure an East-West security conference and an agreement for mutual balanced force reductions.

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further initiatives Her Majesty's Government have made to enable an East-West security conference to be held.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I and my colleagues of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation discussed the proposed Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe very fully at the recent meeting


of the North Atlantic Council in Brussels as well as the question of mutual and balanced force reductions. The Alliance's policy, with which Her Majesty's Government concur, is set out in the Communiqué issued after that meeting, which, with permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Allaun: As this weekend East and West initialled a transit agreement, what on earth are we waiting for now? Is it not clear that in international circles the British Government are regarded as being the ones to apply the brake to greater progress towards a security conference?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We are not waiting for anything. We did not want to wait for anything. When we left Lisbon after the last meeting of the North Atlantic Council we anticipated that multilateral arrangements for a security conference would begin. The hon. Member will recall that the Russians required that the protocol should be signed simultaneously with ratification of the treaties between the Federal German Republic, Poland and the Soviet Union. Now the Federal German Republic has to pass some acts through its Parliament connected with these treaties. So I am afraid that preparation of the security conference has been delayed by that for the last few months.

Mr. Healey: Could the Foreign Secretary explain why it is not possible for preparations for the security conference to begin immediately? He will recognise that the passing of the treaties through the Bonn Parliament is largely at the mercy of decisions of the opposition parties in Bonn, whereas the earlier we have the security conference in Europe, which, as he himself admitted, is in the interests of all peoples in Europe, East and West, and the sooner we can make progress towards such a conference, the better.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman will have seen that the members of the North Atlantic Council are anxious to get on with preparations. Therefore, we are contacting the Finnish Government who have offered to give facilities for such a conference. The judgment of the Council of Ministers was that the multilateral preparations must begin as soon as possible after the ratification of the two German Treaties with

Poland and the Soviet Union, and after the signature of the Berlin protocol.

Following is the communique:

FINAL COMMUNIQUE

The North Atlantic Council met in Ministerial Session in Brussels on 9th and 10th December, 1971. Foreign and Defence Ministers were present.

2. Ministers stressed that their governments would continue to pursue their long-standing objectives of achieving, through a genuine relaxation of tensions, a just and lasting peace and stability in Europe. They recalled that since the creation of the Alliance over twenty years ago the treaty area has been free of armed conflict and that under existing international conditions the North Atlantic Treaty remains indispensable for the security of member States.

3. Ministers examined the international situation and expressed their deep concern over the tragic events in Southern Asia. It is their fervent hope that hostilities between India and Pakistan will give way to an early and peaceful solution of all aspects of the conflict.

4. Turning to developments in and around Europe, including the Mediterranean, Ministers reviewed the status of the various initiatives undertaken or supported by the Allies and assessed the results of the numerous bilateral contacts between the Allies and other European states.

5. Ministers noted the effects which continuing difficulties in trade and monetary policy could have, among other things, on the state of the Alliance. They were encouraged by the various efforts underway in other fora to remedy these difficulties in the economic sphere. The Ministers decided to keep this matter under continuing review.

6. Ministers took note with satisfaction of the signature, on 3rd September, 1971, of the Quadripartite Agreement on Berlin. They also noted that the German arrangements to implement and supplement the Quadripartite Agreement now appear to be nearing completion, and that, once these arrangements have been concluded, the Governments of France, the United Kingdom and the United States would be prepared to sign forthwith the final Quadripartite Protocol


which would bring the complete Berlin Agreement into effect. Ministers expressed the hope that this would soon be achieved.

7. Ministers viewed this emerging Agreement as an important and encouraging development. Once completed and in effect, the Agreement should bring about practical improvements, while maintaining the Quadripartite status of Berlin and the rights and responsibilities of France, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet Union with regard to Berlin and Germany as a whole. Specifically, Ministers noted that movement of civilian persons and goods between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Western Sectors of Berlin will then be unimpeded, and that the residents of the Western Sectors will be able to visit East Berlin and the G.D.R. Ministers also welcomed the assurance in the Quadripartite Agreement that the ties between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Western Sectors of Berlin will be maintained and developed.

8. Ministers considered that achievement of the Berlin Agreement would also demonstrate that, with a constructive attitude on all sides, it should be possible to reach reasonable solutions between the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic which take into account the special situation in Germany. Ministers took the view that this example would encourage progress on other problems in Europe.

9. Ministers recalled that at their meeting in Lisbon they declared their readiness to undertake multilateral conversations intended to lead to a Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe as soon as the negotiations on Berlin had reached a successful conclusion. In the light of the encouraging developments referred to above they affirmed their readiness to initiate such conversations on this basis as soon as possible.

10. In this perspective, they propose to intensify their preparations and their bilateral contacts with other interested parties.

11. Ministers also took note of the invitation of the Finnish Government to the effect that heads of mission of the countries concerned accredited in Helsinki should undertake multilateral conversations. They stated that their Governments appreciated this initiative and that

they will keep in touch with the Finnish Government in order to consult on this matter.

12. Ministers considered that a Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe should not serve to perpetuate the post-war division of Europe but rather should contribute to reconciliation and co-operation between the participating states by initiating a process of reducing the barriers that still exist. Therefore, Ministers reaffirmed that the Conference should address in a concrete manner the underlying causes of tension in Europe and the basic principles which should govern relations among states irrespective of political and social systems.

13. Ministers took note of the report of the Council in Permanent Session concerning a Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. This report examined four areas of discussion at such a conference: (A) Questions of Security, including Principles Governing Relations between States and certain military aspects of security; (B) Freer Movement of People, Information and Ideas, and Cultural Relations; (C) Co-operation in the Fields of Economics, Applied Science and Technology, and Pure Science; and (D) Co-operation to Improve the Human Environment. Ministers requested the Council in Permanent Session to continue these studies with a view to facilitating a constructive discussion of these subjects at the negotiations.

14. Ministers representing countries which participate in the N.A.T.O. integrated defence programme reaffirmed their longstanding belief that a mutual and balanced reduction of forces in Central Europe which preserves the legitimate security interests of all concerned would maintain security and enhance stability in Europe, make an important contribution to the easing of tension and improve East-West relations generally.

15. These Ministers reviewed the developments with respect to mutual and balanced force reductions since their last meeting in Lisbon. They reaffirmed the decisions taken at the meeting of Deputy Foreign Ministers and High Officials on 5th and 6th October, 1971, to propose exploratory talks with the Soviet Government and other interested governments and to charge Mr. Brosio with this mission on the basis of a substantive


mandate. They expressed their thanks to Mr. Brosio for accepting.

16. The Ministers noted with regret that the Soviet Government has so far failed to respond to the Allied initiative in this important area of East-West relations in which that Government had earlier expressed an interest. Noting statements by Soviet leaders to the effect that they hoped East-West talks on force reductions in Europe would begin as soon as possible, these Ministers hope that Mr. Brosio will soon be able to go to Moscow. The interested Allied Governments continue to believe that prior explorations of this question as essential in preparation for eventual multilateral negotiations.

17. These Ministers emphasised the importance they attach to measures which would reduce the dangers of military confrontation and thus enhance security in Europe. They noted that a Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe should deal with these aspects in a suitable manner.

18. Ministers noted a report on further studies conducted within N.A.T.O. on mutual and balanced force reductions since the Lisbon Meeting. They instructed the Permanent Representatives to continue this work.

19. Ministers welcomed the fact that the negotiations between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. on strategic arms limitations have resulted in concrete agreements to reduce the risk of accidental nuclear war and to improve communication arrangements between the two governments. Satisfaction was expressed for the close Alliance consultation which has been conducted throughout the course of the Strategic Arms Limitations talks. Ministers expressed the hope that these negotiations will soon lead to agreements which would curb the competition in strategic arms and strengthen international peace and security.

20. Ministers reaffirmed their determination to promote progress in disarmament and arms control and reviewed recent developments in these fields. They expressed satisfaction at the measures envisaged to prohibit the development, production and stockpiling of bacteriological (biological) and toxin weapons and their destruction. They hoped that all States will adopt similar measures.

Ministers also expressed the hope that headway could be made towards reaching an agreement on the controlled prohibition of chemical weapons. Ministers representing countries which participate in the N.A.T.O. integrated defence programme noted with interest the efforts being undertaken to find effective means for the verification of an eventual agreement on a comprehensive test ban.

21. Ministers took note of a report on the situation in the Mediterranean prepared on their instructions by the Council in Permanent Session. They reaffirmed their concern about the course of events in this area, while expressing their hope that a peaceful solution would be found in the Eastern Mediterranean. In the light of the conclusions of the report before them, they instructed the Council in Permanent Session to continue consultations on this subject and to follow the evolution of the various aspects of the situation in order to report thereon at their next meeting.

Ministers were pleased by the new achievements of the Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society (C.C.M.S.) in its studies, especially in the fields of air and water pollution, and by the initiation of a project on the application of modern technology to health care.

23. The Spring Ministerial Meeting of the Council will be held in Bonn on 30th and 31st May, 1972.

24. Ministers requested the Foreign Minister of Belgium to transmit the text of the preceding paragraphs in their behalf through diplomatic channels to all other interested parties, including neutral and non-aligned governments.

25. Ministers of the countries participating in N.A.T.O.'s integrated defence programme met as the Defence Planning Committee.

26. In the light of the considerations outlined in the preceding paragraphs, they emphasised that N.A.T.O.'s efforts to achieve sufficient defence capabilities and the striving for détente are not incompatible but complementary, and that sufficient and credible defence is a necessary corollary to realistic negotiations on security and co-operation in Europe. In the same context and as a fundamental principle, these Ministers reaffirmed the well-known position of the


Alliance that its overall military capability should not be reduced except as part of a pattern of mutual force reductions balanced in scope and timing.

27. These Ministers discussed mutual and balanced force reduction (M.B.F.R.) and reaffirmed their intent to continue their close involvement in the development of common allied positions.

28. They noted the growth of Soviet military efforts in recent years and the indications that the Soviet Union continues to strengthen both its strategic nuclear and its conventional forces, especially naval forces. They therefore agreed on the need for continued and systematic improvement of N.A.T.O.'s conventional forces and for the maintenance of adequate and modern tactical and strategic nuclear forces in order to ensure that the deterrent remains effective at all levels, and in order to avoid weakening the basis of N.A.T.O.'s search for détente.

29. They discussed a follow-up report to the Alliance Defence Study for the Seventies (the AD 70 Study). They welcomed the progress being made by members in improving Alliance defences. In particular they noted with satisfaction the further specific and important efforts announced on 7th December by those European member countries which participated in the European Defence Improvement Programme, and recognised the emphasis which these European member countries are placing on modernising the equipment of their forces, land, sea and air, along AD 70 lines. They also welcomed the substantial improvements to their conventional forces planned by the United States, and they noted with satisfaction the enhanced United States contribution to N.A.T.O.'s strategic deterrent which will result from the deployment of the POSEIDON weapon system. They heard with appreciation the reaffirmation by the United States Secretary of Defence that, given a similar approach by the other Allies, the United States would maintain and improve their own forces in Europe and would not reduce them except in the context of reciprocal East-West action.

30. They endorsed the priority areas which were proposed to them for the further implementation of the AD 70 recommendations. Within these areas

they identified for early action certain fields such as additional anti-tank weapons and modern tanks; advanced electronic equipment for certain combat aircraft; improved all-weather strike, attack and reconnaissance air forces; improved air defences and aircraft protection; better maritime surveillance and anti-submarine forces; more maritime patrol aircraft and seaborne missile systems; the replacement of over-age ships; the strengthening and modernisation of local and reinforcement forces on the Northern and South-Eastern Flanks; and larger ammunition stocks for land and air forces.

31. They recognised the global nature of the Soviet maritime capability, and in particular the deployments and activities of the Soviet fleets in the Atlantic and in the Mediterranean. In their discussion they reaffirmed the need for appropriate Allied measures, and reviewed progress.

32. They noted the force commitments undertaken by member nations for the year 1972 and they adopted a five-year N.A.T.O. Force Plan for the period 1972–76, including many AD 70 implementation measures.

33. They concluded that the aim within N.A.T.O. should be to allocate to defence purposes, where this is within the economic capability of countries, a stable and possibly larger proportion of their growing national wealth, in order to maintain an adequate deterrent and defensive capability.

34. The Defence Ministers comprising the Nuclear Defence Affairs Committee (Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States) also convened to examine reports on the activity of the Nuclear Planning Group during the past year and on its projected work.

35. The next Ministerial meeting of the Defence Planning Committee will be held in the Spring of 1972.

Mr. Moyle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what official representations he has received from the United States Government calling for a Ministerial meeting of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries to prepare for a European


security conference: and what has been his reply.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): The United States Ambassador called on my right hon. Friend before the recent meeting of the North Atlantic Council to outline the position which Mr. Secretary Rogers would take on matters affecting the preparation of a Conference on European Security. The Communiqué issued after that meeting, which is being circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, sets out the Alliance's position on this question.

Mr. Moyle: Since the Government's position is that there should be a conference provided that there is proper preparation for it, should not the Government separate preparation for a European security conference from such a conference, and should they not be preparing so that the conference can begin as soon as there is ratification of the German agreements?

Mr. Royle: My right hon. Friend in answer to earlier Questions made Her Majesty's Government's position clear—that we were glad the N.A.T.O. Ministers had affirmed their readiness to initiate, as soon as possible after the successful conclusion of the Berlin talks, multilateral conversations intended to lead to a conference on security questions.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: It is hard to see what could come out of such a conference unless there were mutually balanced reductions, involving a proper identification to see that the reductions really were mutual and balancing, and it is difficult to see how this can be achieved in the present circumstances of East-West relations. Would my hon. Friend agree to go slowly towards the convening of an East-West conference?

Mr. Royle: I note my hon. Friend's comments and, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said earlier, we wish to make certain that there are careful preparations before we go ahead with this conference.

Mr. Molloy: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that, if he were to accept the proposal put forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott Hopkins), it would mean that there

would be no endeavour whatever to resolve the problems which face East and West Europe? Will he repudiate that suggestion and clearly state that it is the Government's policy to attempt some rapprochement with the Soviet Union and other East European countries?

Mr. Royle: We have made clear on many occasions, as has my right hon. Friend this afternoon, that it is our intention to play a part in a European security conference, subject to its being carefully prepared.

Mr. Moyle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what official representations he has received from the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics calling for a European security conference in 1972; and what has been his reply.

Mr. Royle: The Soviet Chargé d'Affaires called on 15th October to explain the position of his Government on the preparations for a Conference on European Security in advance of the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in December. He was informed that Her Majesty's Government would play a full and constructive part in the preparations and in the subsequent Conference.

Mr. Moyle: Now that Mr. Brezhnev has called for a conference to be held in 1972, will Her Majesty's Government exercise all reasonable speed in making preparations for such a conference, otherwise the propaganda initiative in this matter will be handed to the Soviet Government?

Mr. Royle: My right hon. Friend made our position clear in answer to the earlier Question.

India and Pakistan

Mr. Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about initiatives taken by Her Majesty's Government to promote a settlement of the situation in Pakistan and India.

Mr. Shore: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Pakistan with a view to promoting a political settlement of the war in East Bengal.

Mr. Barnes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his latest discussions with the Governments of India and Pakistan.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on Her Majesty's Government's initiatives in connection with the situation within the Indian sub-continent.

Mr. Wilkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what results he has achieved by his urging the Indian Government to withdraw from the borders with Pakistan.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will ask the West Pakistan Government to withdraw its forces from East Bengal.

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on what steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Government to promote a political settlement in East Pakistan.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek powers to call immediately a meeting of heads of Government of India and Pakistan to discuss cease fire between the warring parties.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I would ask hon. Members to await the full statement which, with your permission. Mr. Speaker, I shall be making after Questions on this matter.

Mr. Prentice: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on his exchanges with the Pakistan Government on the need to release Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and to hold discussions with him on the future of East Bengal.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary told the House on 18th November, the Government have already expressed concern to the Pakistan Government about Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. My present understanding

is that the trial of Sheikh Mujibur has not yet ended.
It is for the Pakistan Government to decide whether or not to hold discussions with Sheikh Mujibur.—[Vol. 826, c. 626–8.]

Mr. Prentice: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but will he make it clear, either now or when he makes his statement later, that the only way to avoid prolonged bloodshed and suffering is by the immediate withdrawal of the Pakistan Army from Bangladesh and the release of Sheikh Mujibur so that he may take over the duties to which he was elected by his people a year ago?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I shall be making a full statement on these matters after Question Time, but perhaps I can reply to the right hon. Gentleman in this way: we have repeatedly stated our wish to see a dialogue take place between those in West Pakistan who hold the power and those who can command confidence in East Pakistan. So far we have been unable to achieve this.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that Sheikh Mujibur is alive? Is he aware that there is a good deal of speculation in India and East Pakistan about whether this gentleman is alive?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As far as we know, Sheikh Mujibur is alive. The hon. and learned Gentleman will understand that we have no method of being certain, but we think that he is alive.

Mr. Shore: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is for economic aid, other than food aid, for Pakistan; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Prentice: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now cut off non-project aid to Pakistan, as a sequel to the decision not to initiate new project aid in present circumstances.

Mr. Wood: We have pledged no new aid to Pakistan this year, but we are honouring our obligations under the existing loan agreements for both project and non-project aid. Now that war


has broken out, it is possible that aid shipments may not be able to reach Pakistani ports.

Mr. Shore: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will use this period during which supplies are bound to be delayed in arriving in Pakistan to rethink his whole aid programme. Will he consider very carefully what part our aid programme can play for the eastern part of East Bengal, which may well be emerging as a new State but a State with very great economic needs?

Mr. Wood: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is in no doubt about my concern ever since the difficulties began this spring over the inevitable delay in the resumption of our aid programme in East Pakistan. I am still very anxious that the programme should be resumed and that conditions should exist to allow me to resume it.

Mr. Prentice: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all of us who have held his office are bound to recognise that the way in which aid has flowed to Pakistan in recent years may have contributed to the difference between the two wings of Pakistan and therefore has been one of the contributory causes of the present crisis? Looking to the future, is the right hon. Gentleman's Department preparing plans for a substantial aid programme for Bangladesh when it shortly becomes an independent State?

Mr. Wood: We have examined the needs of East Pakistan this year and we shall do so in future. As I have said, we shall be examining the situation very carefully in the next few months to see when conditions are suitable for a resumption of the very much needed aid.

Mr. Tinn: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that a good part of our aid to Pakistan was required because of irrigation work and work on dams which had to be done in the Indus Valley because of India's unilateral action some years ago? Can the right hon. Gentleman explain what benefit there can be for the people of Pakistan if assistance with beneficial work required to be done because of Indian action against the people of West Pakistan is withheld?

Mr. Wood: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I cannot believe that that

would bring any benefit to East Pakistan. That is why we have continued the Indus Valley project.

Mrs. Hart: In view of the events which have taken place in the last week or two, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be entirely appropriate if the British Government were to seek to convene a meeting of the Pakistan Aid Consortium and the India Aid Consortium with the purpose, first, of maximising immediate aid to India and, secondly, of ensuring that a programme of aid to East Bengal, presumably as a separate State, can be initiated at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Wood: Naturally I shall take account of the right hon. Lady's suggestion, but my present feeling is that it might be premature to convene meetings of the consortia until we can see more clearly what the situation will be.

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the evacuation arrangements for British nationals in Karachi, Dacca and other areas involved in the fighting between India and Pakistan.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I would ask the hon. Member to await the statement which, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall be making after Questions.

Bahamas

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will pay an official visit to the island of Abaco in the Bahamas.

Mr. Godber: I visited the Bahamas in January. My right hon. Friend has no present plans to do so.

Mr. Mitchell: Is the Minister aware that a number of people on the island of Abaco are rather unhappy about future constitutional proposals for the Bahamas, and could he tell the House what happened to the petition that was signed by a large number of these people and presented to the Governor earlier this year?

Mr. Godber: This petition was considered, but the petitioners were advised by the Governor that any proposals for


a change in the constitution should be put forward through their own elected representatives to the Governor. Their views were by no means unanimous. One of the elected members from Abaco led a delegation to the Governor declaring unshakeable opposition to any separation. There is obviously a divergence of views.

South Africa (Arms Supply)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in supplying arms to South Africa in accordance with the terms of the Simonstown Agreement.

Mr. Godber: The contract for the supply of seven Wasp helicopters has now been signed.

Mr. Hamilton: That answer will not be received with any great excitement on this side of the House. Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that no further orders will be fulfilled by British manufacturers? Furthermore, does the contract for seven helicopters completely fulfil our obligations under the Simonstown Agreement?

Mr. Godber: The position was fully set Out in the debate last February, and I do not think I need add anything more. The position of Her Majesty's Government was reserved in regard to further orders, if we chose to consider them, but we said that we would notify the House if we did so. The position is precisely as I stated it. The order for seven helicopters stands and no other orders have been placed.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: How many jobs will be provided in fulfilment of this contract?

Mr. Godber: I cannot give the exact number, but this will obviously be a useful help in the employment situation.

British Subjects (Arrest and Detention)

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries in which British subjects are under arrest or detention, stating the numbers in each case.

Mr. Godber: I will, with permission, circulate this information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Jenkins: Could the hon. Gentleman say whether any other country has anything like the number of people under arrest or in detention as has South Africa?

Mr. Godber: Yes, Sir. The list is a very full one. In regard to those serving sentences, the first country in the list is the United States; second, Spain; third, South Africa; fourth, Germany. As to those who are awaiting trial: first, Germany; second, Spain; third, Zambia; fourth, Tanzania.

Following is the information:
Details of British subjects reported to be under arrest or detention are listed below. These have been compiled from information available in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 1st December, 1971.

Country
Number of British subjects arrested and awaiting trial
Number of British subjects serving sentences



In custody
Not in custody


Austria
1
—
3


Belgium
3
—
6


Bolivia
—
1
—


Brazil
1
1
—


Bulgaria
—
—
3


Chile
—
2
—


China
4
—
—


Denmark
—
—
2


Finland
—
—
2


France
10
1
10


Germany
19
3
12


Greece
9
—
6


Guatemala
1
—
2


Hungary
1
—
—


India
11
2
1


Iran
5
1
4


Israel
9
2
3


Italy
11
1
4


Kenya
—
—
2


Kuwait
1
—
—


Lebanon
5
—
4


Luxembourg
2
—
—


Malawi
—
—
1


Malta
1
—
—


Mexico
—
—
2


Morocco
1
1
5


Netherlands
2
—
2


Nigeria
—
—
1


Norway
2
—
4


Pakistan
—
—
1


Portugal
5
—
—


Rhodesia
—
—
2


Roumania
—
—
1


Saudi Arabia
1
—
—


South Africa
9
3
16


Spain
15
2
19


Sweden
1
—
6


Switzerland
4
1
7


Tanzania
12
—
1


Tunisia
—
1
1

No records are maintained of British subjects arrested or detained in Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Dearne Valley

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to improve the employment situation in the Dearne Valley constituency area.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): The Dearne Valley is already an intermediate area. The Department will continue to bring to the notice of suitable firms the advantages of locating there.

Mr. Wainwright: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that up to now the Government's promises have not brought any more jobs to the Dearne Valley area, and that unemployment there has been rising and is now almost 8 per cent? When will they do something about bringing jobs to this area?

Mr. Grant: I accept that unemployment has been rising in the Dearne Valley, as it has elsewhere. As for what the Government are doing about it, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made in the House by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Industrial Development Certificates (South Yorkshire)

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many industrial development certificates have been granted in the South Yorkshire coal mining intermediate area since June, 1970; and how many jobs for men and women will be provided thereby.

Mr. Grant: There were 117, estimated to provide 3,000 jobs for men and 1,600 jobs for women.

Mr. Wainwright: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that in spite of his right hon. Friend's fourth attempt to create jobs in South Yorkshire, none has been forthcoming? Will he also take into the account the tact that many people in the Dearne Valley district have to travel many miles to obtain work? When will the Government do something to make certain that South Yorkshire will become a more viable community than it is at present?

Mr. Grant: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, but measures already taken to put the economy on a sound basis should lead to the revival of investment in industry in the Dearne Valley.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does my hon. Friend realise when considering the question of I.D.C.s in South Yorkshire that he should appreciate that next door in Derbyshire we, too, are in need of new and alternative forms of employment? Will the Government see that in pursuing their I.D.C policy more jobs will be provided in the longer term, not only in Yorkshire, but in the intermediate areas and indeed more widely?

Mr. Grant: My hon. Friend will realise that I.D.C.s are freely available in South Yorkshire in the intermediate area; and as for the availability of I.D.C.s in other parts of the country, the position was set out by the Department of Trade and Industry on 5th July.

Mr. Wainwright: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

NORTHERN IRELAND (SENATOR BARNHILL)

Rev. Ian Paisley (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the murder of Senator John Barnhill in Northern Ireland yesterday and whether he will now make urgent representations to the Government of the Irish Republic to


ensure that they cease to harbour and give refuge to men who are perpetrating a series of murders of citizens of the United Kingdom.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): We were deeply shocked at the murder of Senator Barnhill and I know that the House will join me in expressing our deep sympathy to his family. A statement on this despicable case of murder, however, is not for me.
We have made repeated representations to the Government of the Republic of Ireland about cross-Border incidents, and in the light of the recent murders carried out close to the Border by men who are able to take refuge in the Republic, these will be renewed urgently.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I thank the Foreign Secretary for that reply. Is he aware that all right-thinking sections of the Northern Ireland community on both sides of the religious fence utterly condemn this vile murder? Does he agree that, as there has been from all right-thinking sections of the community this united expression of detestation, now is the time to push representations with the Irish Republic on this issue?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is the fifth cold-blooded murder in this area and that those who have been committing these crimes have been seen to escape across the border? Does he agree that if incursions of this kind were made into any other part of the United Kingdom and any other Government in Europe were harbouring such criminals Her Majesty's Government would take effective steps to put an end to the matter once and for all?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The House will have recognised the universal condemnation of this deliberate murder. We shall, as I told my hon. Friend, urge the Government of the Republic to take effective action to control these people on their side of the border.

Mr. Healey: May I associate Her Majesty's Opposition with the Foreign Secretary's sentiments about the appalling incidents which have occurred in Northern Ireland in the last week or two?
The right hon. Gentleman will have noted with profound approval the forthright

statement of Cardinal Conway condemning recent incidents of violence of this nature. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the sense of shock which is felt among all communities and on both sides of the frontier in Ireland may present him with an opportunity to have talks with the Government of the Republic of Eire which could set this whole issue on a happier path? Will he consider with his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister whether the time has not come to take up the longer-term perspectives opened up by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in a recent speech which I think had wide approval on both sides of the House?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have, of course, noted the statement of Cardinal Conway, and I welcome it, as the right hon. Gentleman does. I think this is an opportunity to take up with the Government of the Irish Republic these matters, for which they must accept some responsibility for control on their side of the Border. On the wider questions, the right hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today in Belfast, and I hope that progress will be made towards discussions with all parties.

Mr. McMaster: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the statement and suggestions made by the Leader of the Opposition there has, in fact, been an increase in the amount of violence in Northern Ireland? [Interruption.] Is he also aware that, despite the many representations which Her Majesty's Government have stated that they have made in the past, the Government of the South of Ireland are still harbouring these men and are not bringing them effectively to justice?
Will my right hon. Friend study what economic and other pressures may be put on the South of Ireland, because the people of the North will not tolerate large numbers of people in the South having freedom to move freely into and out of this country, exercising the franchise while they are here, remembering that during the last I.R.A. campaign between 1956 and 1962 the South of Ireland interned large numbers of known and self-confessed I.R.A. criminals? Will he see that the South of Ireland takes effective measures to bring this campaign of assassination to an end?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I said that we would do our best in representations to and discussions with the Government of the Republic. I do not really think that there is any point in going far back in history on this issue. I would rather, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said, look at this as an opportunity to obtain a constructive attitude.

Mr. Orme: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that all hon. Members on this side of the House condemn this atrocious murder? Has he noted the statement not only of Cardinal Conway but of the S.D.L.P., which in forthright terms has also condemned this murder?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that those who are suggesting political initiatives are not responsible for the escalation and that what we need now is a fresh political initiative from Her Majesty's Government? Does he agree that that would be not a sign of weakness but a sign of strength, and that something will have to be done about internment if we are to have some de-escalation of this serious matter?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Everyone is totally sickened by these crimes which have continued for so long. My right hon. Friend goes to Northern Ireland to seek a political initiative, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman awaits his return, and then, if he wishes, he can put to him any questions he may have.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that, while everybody warmly welcomes the proper condemnation by Cardinal Conway of these murders and outrages, the immediate necessity is to ensure prompt and effective executive action by the Irish authorities to restrain and prevent these outrages?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir, and that was the point of my reply.

INDIA AND PAKISTAN

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement.
The hostilities between India and Pakistan continue. Indian forces have

advanced deep into East Pakistan, have captured the town of Jessore and have now virtually surrounded Dacca. Fighting is also continuing on the border between India and West Pakistan, particularly in the Chumb area where Pakistan forces have penetrated into Indian territory.
As the House is aware, seven British subjects were killed and six injured when a British ship was attacked in Karachi harbour on 9th December. In a message to the Prime Minister, the Indian Prime Minister has expressed her great regret for this attack and we are seeking compensation. Apart from this tragic incident we are not so far aware that any other British lives have been lost.
I am happy to say that the airlift of British subjects and other foreign nationals from Karachi, Islamabad and Dacca is now complete. This means that, with the exception of a small number of United Kingdom nationals in Khulna, Chittagong and elsewhere, about whom urgent inquiries are being made but some of whom appear to have taken the decition to remain, all those British subjects wishing to leave Pakistan have now done so. Over 1,300 persons were airlifted out of Pakistan by the Royal Air Force in three days; this was no easy task and in the case of Dacca in particular it was carried out in circumstances of considerable difficulty and danger. I am sure the House will wish to join me in expressing congratulations and thanks to all those in the Services and in our posts in the subcontinent who were involved in this fine achievement. Our Deputy High Commissioner and a residual staff remain in Dacca.
Since the fighting broke out we have reviewed our policy on arms sales, and, as I promised the House on 6th December, we have been in touch with the Governments of countries who have been main suppliers to India and Pakistan. I must report that as a result of these contacts there is no prospect of any general embargo on the sale of arms. That being so, I have considered what our own attitude should be.
There is, as the House knows, no military aid to India. As for sales, the Indian Government have a number of long-term contracts with commercial firms for the supply of military equipment.


These are subject to export licence, the grant of which is being kept under constant review, in the light of the existing circumstances, including the state of hostilities in the sub-continent, the situation at the United Nations and the attitudes of alternative suppliers. As far as Pakistan is concerned we have not been a regular supplier of arms for Pakistan for some years. Therefore there are no similar contracts. The same supervision would be given to any orders from Pakistan which may be placed here.
The House will be aware that there have been a number of efforts to bring about a ceasefire as a prelude to a political settlement. All resolutions in the Security Council however were vetoed; and a resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal of the forces of both India and Pakistan to their own territories which was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 7th December, has proved ineffective. For their part, Her Majesty's Government believe that it is necessary to seek practical means of bringing the fighting to an end which take account of the realities of the situation and the attitudes of the parties. We are, therefore, in touch with other members of the Security Council to see how we can best assist in bringing about the earliest possible end to the fighting and the institution of constructive discussions.

Mr. Healey: First, may I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement? The whole House will wish to join him in congratulating Her Majesty's Services; and, indeed, the diplomats concerned, because it is clear that their rôle was almost as important as that of the Services in carrying out this evacuation with such extraordinary skill and success. I have one question for the right hon. Gentleman. Many Members of the House will have been disturbed to read stories that the passports of many of the civilians evacuated have been confiscated. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman would make a statement about this. Is there no better way of ensuring the necessary contribution to the cost of the evacuation by those concerned?
On the question of arms supplies, we on this side of the House feel that the position taken by Her Majesty's Government is both wise and necessary, and

while it is important to keep a close eye on the fulfilment of existing orders, it would be quite wrong to carry out a unilateral embargo on arms supplies to one of the parties to the dispute when there is no certainty that other arms supplying countries will follow suit.
Finally, may I also congratulate the right hon. Gentleman again—I cannot guarantee to continue in this tone of congratulation for the rest of the afternoon—on the attitude taken by Her Majesty's Government at the United Nations. I think that all of us will feel that this is no time for inflammatory gestures, and it is very important for Her Majesty's Government to maintain a position which may, at some stage in the future, give them an opportunity of making a constructive intervention with the support of both sides to the dispute.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, particularly for the tribute he paid to the members of the diplomatic staff, who have done really superb work under very trying conditions. Yes, there must be a better way than impounding passports. Of that, I am quite convinced, and I shall look into this matter urgently. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments on the very difficult question of arms supplies. We gave this a great deal of thought. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition raised this point a week or two ago. I think that we have come to the right answer. I shall keep a very vigilant eye on this all the time. We came to the conclusion, like right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that it was no use taking part in ineffective posturings in the United Nations and that we should do better to await a chance for more effective action, which may come in the course of the next few weeks.

Mr. Jessel: Would my right hon. Friend say how many British subjects are in Chittagong and Khulna, and whether they are in any danger?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As far as we know—and this is uncertain—there are about 16 in Chittagong and some nine in Khulna, I think. On previous occasions a good many of that number decided to stay when offered the chance of evacuation. They may decide to stay


again. We are looking at the matter carefully and trying to see how many want to go.

Mr. Barnes: Will there not be a huge task of reconstruction and rehabilitation to be carried out in Bangladesh and is it not vital that that task should begin as soon as conditions there permit? Has the Foreign Secretary had any discussions with the Indian Government about the contribution which Britain can make to that task?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not know whether the hon. Member was present during Question Time, but it was then made clear that the situation has changed a good deal, and the whole question of aid to East Pakistan will have to be reconsidered, with, among others, the Americans, who have temporarily, at any rate, cut off the additional aid which they were going to give to India or Pakistan. We shall have to look at this from the start. I am well aware of the large problem which will be presented to everyone.

Mr. Wilkinson: In the Security Council will my right hon. Friend be on the side of the Americans in urging a withdrawal of forces and a cease-fire—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—before further blood is needlessly shed? If India and her friend and mentor the Soviet Union are eager for India to continue hostilities until they obtain their military and political objectives, will he then consider a unilateral embargo on the further sale of arms to India to bring pressure on that country?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not think that it is a question of being on the side of the United States or any other country. We have to make up our minds ourselves on what is the best rôle which Britain can play to help to bring about a ceasefire and an orderly political settlement following that.

Mr. Cronin: In view of the hopeless military situation of the Pakistan forces in East Bengal, will the right hon. Gentleman consider using his good offices to secure a negotiated withdrawal of those forces? Will he also bear in mind the danger of communal massacres after a cease-fire and adopt an attitude of some

reserve towards the withdrawal of the Indian Army from East Bengal?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: All these dangers are present in the minds of everyone in the House, and communal rioting, even outside East Bengal, has been one of the very greatest dangers of all. Mercifully, this has not happened so far, but we have closely in mind all the questions my hon. Friend has raised.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: As the country most responsible for what is happening, through the partition of India, and the country with most experience of the conditions in India and Pakistan, does not my right hon. Friend agree that we should take the initiative in calling a conference of the Heads of State of the two countries at present at war with each other, with a view to discussing the problems of not only the so-called Bangladesh but also Kashmir? Should not we take the initiative of asking the two Heads of State—as was done by Mr. Kosygin in 1965 and 1967—to convene a conference where those two Heads of State can get together to discuss the matter, at the same time as a cease-fire?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion. I think that he is looking a little far ahead.

Mr. Tinn: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what progress was being made in the high-level consultations between the United Kingdom Government and the Pakistan Government with a view to the promotion of a political settlement, up to the time of the Indian invasion?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We were using any influence we had to try to achieve a satisfactory political settlement. I think that the hon. Gentleman will realise the difficulties there are in this matter, in so doing.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on the phrase in his statement where he said that the great necessity now is a realistic approach to this situation, and on his clear disassociation from the United States and others who are trying to force various issues which are now no longer of any validity whatsoever. Surely the main thing now is to avoid further bloodshed, and surely that can best be done by moving on lines similar to those proposed by Mrs. Gandhi.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We must look for the opportunity of successful constructive intervention, and I think that will come sooner than we think. I must reserve the Government's judgment on that matter just now.

Mr. Shore: Now that East Bengal is on the eve of its liberation, will the Foreign Secretary tell us what contacts have been made with the Bangladesh authorities pending recognition and if those contacts, in the right hon. Gentleman's view, are likely to be helpful in dealing with the present problem?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We must at present deal with the Governments of India and Pakistan. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of our normal criteria for recognition, which have to be applied in this case, as in others.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Following up a question which I put to my right hon. Friend the other day, may I ask him what steps he is taking to bring as balanced a picture as possible to the knowledge of the United States especially bearing in mind that those who have known both India and Pakistan over many years have certainly left me with the impression that in this case India had no alternative but to do what she has so far done?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I had an opportunity of talking to Mr. Secretary Rodgers about this at the North Atlantic Council. My hon. Friend knows that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I are going to Bermuda shortly, where I hope to have another talk with Mr. Secretary Rodgers.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that we on the Liberal bench wish to be associated with the congratulations to our forces on the superb efficiency of the airlift and also to the members of the Diplomatic Corps who are remaining on in Dacca in difficult circumstances?
The right hon. Gentleman will remember that I agreed with his neutral position last week. However, does he agree that it is important that this is not impaired by the supply of arms? Is he aware that the statement that the grant of export licences is being kept under constant

review can mean anything at all? Will he say whether we are supplying arms at this moment?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Since 10th December there have been two consignments, one by ship which will take a long time to reach India. I cannot go beyond saying that I will keep a very close eye on the licensing system. Most of the supplies were ordered by India as longterm contracts and are concerned with India's long-term rearmament programmes. I repeat that I am keeping a close eye on the supplies which might be asked for in the next few days or weeks.

Mr. Braine: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all of us in the House approve his realistic approach and the initiatives that he has taken with the United Nations, but is he aware that the action taken in the invasion of East Pakistan has superimposed on an unhappy province already suffering from acute food shortages the additional burden that the Indians will simply occupy a desert of misery and deprivation? Has my right hon. Friend, therefore, taken any initiative with the United States Administration in regard to contingency planning for famine relief, perhaps quite soon?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The opportunity to talk to Mr. Secretary Rodgers will come in a few days' time. I will take that opportunity to talk to him on this question, because obviously a big problem will be presented, not only to the consortium, but to the whole world, which will wish to help.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the Secretary of State explore the possible opening provided this weekend by the separate statements of the leaders of both sides that they would be prepared to withdraw their troops from East Bengal if the other side did?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We shall have to wait a day or two before we can make a judgment on those statements. Statements have been made from West Pakistan, on the one side, and by Mrs. Gandhi, on the other. This may develop in the next day or two, but I cannot comment on those statements now.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would like to make a statement about my meeting with the European Community in Brussels on 11th and 12th December.
At this meeting, which was attended by Ministers of the other applicant countries, I was accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as well as by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office.
The two main subjects on the agenda were fisheries and animal health.
On fisheries the United Kingdom together with the Republic of Ireland and Denmark have now reached agreement on the outstanding problems.
We have persuaded the Community of the need to safeguard the essential fishing interests of the applicant countries in order to ensure conservation of fishing stocks and the protection of the livelihood of our fishermen.
As a result of the agreement that we have reached the position would be as follows:
First, it is clear that we retain full jurisdiction over the whole of our coastal waters up to 12 miles. In other words, we have power to control on a nondiscriminatory basis the conservation of stocks by such means as the regulation of size of nets, types of trawl and methods of fishing.
Secondly, access to our coastal waters within six miles from our baselines is limited exclusively to British vessels. Next, in areas between six and 12 miles, where the baselines are not in themselves a sufficient safeguard or where the stocks are already fully exploited, the fishing will also be limited to British vessels and to those with existing rights to fish there for certain species of fish. The areas covered in this way out to 12 miles are the Orkneys and Shetlands, the North and East Coasts of Scotland, North-East England from the river Coquet to Flamborough Head, Devon and Cornwall, including, of course, the Scillies and Lundy Island, and County Down.
The effect of all this is that there is no change at all in the protection now afforded in areas from which about 95 per cent. by value of the total inshore catch is taken. As far as the remainder is concerned—that is, those areas that I have not mentioned earlier—there will be a generalisation of existing rights between six and 12 miles only.
We have also sought and obtained a formal assurance from the Community that the legal application of the common fisheries policy would not permit, either in form or in fact, any discrimination by a member State in waters beyond 12 miles over which it might exercise fishing jurisdiction against the fishing vessels of other member States operating in such waters. This is a valuable safeguard for our deep sea fishermen.
As to the future of the fisheries policy, we have urged upon the Community the need for common action in all our interests to ensure conservation of stocks. In consequence, we have agreed with the Community that as soon as practicable, and by 1979 at the latest, the Community will attempt to determine conditions for the preservation of the biological resources of the sea.
We have further agreed that before the end of 1982 the enlarged Community will, after studying a report on the situation then obtaining with particular reference to the economic and social conditions of inshore areas and the state of the fish stocks, examine the arrangements which could follow what we have negotiated for the first 10 years.
Here I must emphasise that these are not just transitional arrangements which automatically lapse at the end of a fixed period.
In substance what we have achieved can fairly be described for the most part as a maintenance of the status quo for a decade followed by a fair and open-ended review taking account of all the circumstances of the time. I am confident that when that review takes place Her Majesty's Governmena will continue to safeguard this vital national interest.
Before leaving this subject I would like to bring to the attention of the House the advantage we have secured in regard to marketing arrangements which are designed to secure better and more stable conditions in the fishing industry and to


which I referred in my statement to the House on 11th November.
Finally, I know the anxieties that exist about conservation and effective measures of policing. As I have already explained to the House, we will retain full jurisdiction over our 12-mile limit. The Fisheries Protection Services of the Royal Navy and the Scottish Department of Agriculture and Fisheries will continue to be responsible for the enforcement of our regulations, including those governing fishing methods and for ensuring that vessels of other countries are excluded from the inner six miles and that limitations on access in areas between six and 12 miles are strictly enforced.
Hon. Members will be aware that the Scottish Department is already ordering a new fisheries cruiser, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has undertaken to strengthen the forces at present employed by the Royal Navy on protection duties in coastal waters. My right hon. Friend will be making a further statement on this in the near future.
The other major issue on which we were able to reach agreement was animal health.
The Community has adopted a number of directives which, if applied to Britain, would have involved a number of important changes in our animal health arrangements.
We therefore asked for and secured agreement that, pending the establishment of a common veterinary policy, we would not be required to accept any animals whether for rearing, breeding or immediate slaughter which have been vaccinated against foot-and-mouth disease. We shall similarly be free to continue our existing methods of testing for brucellosis and tuberculosis. Imports of non-vaccinated animals from other member States will continue to be covered by national rules, and imports of meat will be subject to animal and public health controls in accordance with the Community's provisions.
These arrangements will apply for five years. Well before the end of that period the Commission will review the whole situation and the veterinary developments which have taken place and, to the extent

necessary, make appropriate proposals taking account of those developments.
These arrangements, which take account of the existing differences in standards and practices, will ensure that progress towards common veterinary arrangements throughout the enlarged Community will involve no increase in animal health risk.
I am therefore satisfied, as is my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, that our essential animal health requirements are fully safeguarded now and will remain so in the future.

Mr. Healey: First, is it not clear that anyone who studies the Minister's statement will be unable to agree with him that the agreement that he has reached on fisheries is not a purely transitional agreement giving no guarantees whatever after 1982? Is it not the case that the Minister has abandoned the undertaking to secure continuing arrangements subject to a review in which Britain would be able to veto any changes in these arrangements? Yet these are undertakings that he gave to the House in the last debate, and, indeed, at his own party conference a few weeks earlier. Is he aware that the French Government are reported as claiming that they will be able to ensure the application of existing Community fisheries policies in 1982 by vetoing any alternative proposals?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make clear to the House beyond equivocation which side has the veto in 1982? Until this weekend this was the main substance of the argument. Is it not clear that he has capitulated to French intransigence and that it really is not good enough to try, as his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did on an earlier occasion, to justify a sell-out simply by arguing that nothing better was obtainable? Is it not a fact that the Norwegian Government have refused to accept this agreement, using exactly the same arguments as Her Majesty's Government have earlier used in this House? Will he, therefore, assure the House—I take up again the question I put during Foreign Office questions earlier—that the Government will give the House an opportunity to debate these arrangements before any question arises


of Her Majesty's Government signing the Treaty of Accession?

Mr. Rippon: I will try to answer one by one the questions which the right hon. Gentleman has asked.
He is quite wrong in saying that these are purely transitional arrangements which give no guarantee, or that they are in any way out of line with the assurances I have given to the House in the past. As I said to the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) on 1st December,
We are not asking for anything which is necessarily permanent. However, it must be clear that when we have a review it must be a genuine review in which full regard will be paid, in the circumstances obtaining at the time, to the social, economic and conservation aspects of fishing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1971; Vol. 827, c. 454–5.]
This is what we have done. The dispute which I had at the earlier meetings with the Community was on the areas to which the review was to be applied. They were arguing that a review should apply only to certain special areas such as, for example, Norway, Greenland, the Faroes and Orkney and Shetland. I said that was not sufficient, that we should not have the review limited in that way, and it had to be an open and general review; and that is what we have got. The review, therefore, will cover the whole of our coastline in the circumstances of the time.
Then the right hon. Gentleman raised the question of veto and said that the French Government have been claiming that they have been relying on the veto. Often in this House, and certainly as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition used to say, one has to have regard to the provisions of a treaty according to the way in which it is applied in practice. We must take note of the fact that the Community has never failed to reach an agreed solution to the problems of member States which are of major importance, and it has never imposed, quite apart from the provisions of the Luxembourg agreement in 1965, arrangements contrary to the vital interests of member States. This is clearly a vital interest for us and will be treated as such, I am confident, in 1982.
As to the French, it is interesting to note that French fishermen have sought

protection for their 12-mile limit, and I have no doubt that the French Government in 1982 will be no more anxious to have Breton fishermen marching on Paris than we shall be to have our fishermen marching on London. We have obtained the status quo for 10 years with a fair and open review at the end.
With regard to Norway, I would have hoped that they would have found these arrangements broadly satisfactory [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] They have been found satisfactory by Denmark, Greenland and the Faroes. Greenland and the Faroes have the same sort of problems as we have in this country. I would hope that Norway will receive treatment as good as the treatment we have received, so far as her own 12-mile limits are concerned. There should be no problem about that.
As to the question of a debate, that is, of course, a matter for the Leader of the House.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that rather than attracting—[Interruption.] Oh, keep quiet. Rather than attracting ungenerous niggling from the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), my right hon. and learned Friend deserves the congratulations of the House on the skill and integrity with which he has reached an agreement which is fair to the Community and protects vital British interests? Is not the heart of the matter that when these matters come to be reviewed in 10 years time Britain will be a member of the Community and able effectively to protect her own interests?

Mr. Rippon: Yes, Sir.

Mr. James Johnson: As the East Yorkshire fishermen have stated that they are completely satisfied with the 12-mile limit, as a Humberside Member of Parliament I find it difficult, perhaps even foolish, at this stage to use the expression "a sell-out". Nevertheless, there are anxieties about the 10-year period and about the pledges given over the past month by the Chancellor of the Duchy and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who said that they would stand fast by Norway. In the context of my Question on the Order Paper, may I ask why has the right hon. and learned Gentleman not stood beside Norway in


this matter of the 12-mile limit for the whole of our shores, and not just for certain parts of Northern Scotland and so forth?

Mr. Rippon: We have said that we would seek comparable treatment to that afforded to other applicants. There is no problem about the comparable treatment afforded as between ourselves Ireland, Denmark, Greenland and the Faroes. Norway has still to enlarge her own 12-mile limits but, in view of what we have received, I see no reason why she should not have generous treatment from the Community.
So far as the review is concerned, we have always made it clear, as in other matters, that we do not seek permanent arrangements but we do insist on arrangements which are not just transitional but which provide for a genuine open review in circumstances in which not only we will be a member of the Community, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) has pointed out, but Ireland and Denmark as well, and I would hope Norway too.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: How is my right hon. and learned Friend sure that he can achieve his aspirations? How can we be sure that, the arrangements for the transitional period, on the terms of which I warmly congratulate him, will last beyond the 10-year review? Is this merely a suspended sentence for our inshore industry?

Mr. Rippon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said in the first part of his question. I can assure him that this is not a suspended sentence, and we shall be able adequately to safeguard our vital fishing interests in the future as we have safeguarded them now. [Interruption.] I should have thought that we would have found it easier to safeguard them inside the Community than I have found it to negotiate them from outside.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: In the Minister's original—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am trying to call those hon. Members who had Questions down on this matter.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In his original statement, the Minister, no doubt by accident, made no reference to Norway. If this is such a good agreement,

why was not Norway included in what he had to say? Apart from whether this is to be the biggest success the Government have ever had or whether it is to be a sell-out, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give a definite assurance that in the Treaty of Accession there will be a clause giving us the right in 10 years, if we so wish, to veto any negotiations which are not satisfactory from the then Government's point of view?

Mr. Rippon: Norway's negotiations are carried on by the Norwegian Government. I cannot answer in this House for why the Norwegian Government are not yet satisfied. They have not yet concluded their negotiations. The Norwegian Government will, I hope, go on negotiating with the Community. If any new proposals are put forward, all the applicant countries have an opportunity of commenting and expressing their views at that stage.
As regards a veto, I should have thought that the position had been made fairly clear over the years. It is not wise to talk in terms of a veto. Apart from the provisions in the Treaty of Rome, there exists also the Luxembourg agreement of 1965, and, moreover, one can find no occasion in practice when the Community has ever over-ridden a major national interest—probably for the simple reason that it could not do it.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Why did my right hon. and learned Friend abandon the 12-mile limit in certain areas, notably Liverpool Bay and Cardigan Bay? Will this not result in a concentration of foreign fishing in these areas?

Mr. Rippon: I referred particularly to the need for protection in areas which are not already adequately covered by the base lines or in which there was very little fishing between six and 12 miles. Cardigan Bay is totally protected by the existing base lines.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the Chancellor of the Duchy aware that I represent the constituency with, I believe, the longest coastline in the United Kingdom, and that two-thirds of it will be subject to the 12-mile limit? On the question of the Minches—this is not clear to me—what is the position with regard to the drawing of the base lines and its effect upon fishing in the Minches, since the most


valuable landings in Scotland, outside Aberdeen, Fraserburgh and Peterhead, are on the West Coast? Further, can he say whether the arrangements for the transitional period and the review which he has described have been accepted by Denmark for Greenland and the Faroes and by France for Brittany?

Mr. Rippon: I fully recognise the vital importance of the Minches to West Scotland. The whole of the Minches, and the Clyde also, are entirely protected by the existing base lines.
The review procedure has been accepted by the Republic of Ireland and by Denmark on behalf of Greenland and the Farces, and also by the French, who have considerable interest in the agreement which we have reached.

Mr. Powell: As the Government have shown that they are prepared to go back on their general commitment not to enter the Community without the full-hearted consent of the British Parliament and people, was it really necessary for my right hon. and learned Friend to make such heavy weather over breaking the pledges on fisheries?

Mr. Rippon: I must say, with respect, that I consider my right hon. Friend's question wholly unjustified.

Mr. Pardoe: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement on fisheries policy falls far short of the Government's promises, but will he take it that, since I never believed a word of those promises, I am not overburdened with surprise? May I draw his attention to the second part of his statement, that relating to animal health, which omits rather more than it says? When he was discussing the question of the diseases covered in his statement, did the Chancellor of the Duchy recognise also that it was a matter of keeping out animals which are reared in animal welfare conditions different from those we have here? Was this matter discussed?

Mr. Rippon: That is what the negotiation was about. There are these essential differences, and we wanted to ensure that our standards and practices were protected.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on this

further success. May I stress even further than he has done so far the need for better conservation measures? Would it not be better at this stage to ask the Royal Navy to provide a few more of those faster and smaller "floating gin-palaces" which were referred to on Question No. 1 today to help conserve the breeding areas?

Mr. Rippon: I shall not say anything about what goes on inside those vessels, and I make no comment about that, but I certainly agree that there is need for a conservation policy. That is why, among other things, we have reached an agreement that at the earliest practical moment, and certainly not later than 1979, we should try to consider all these matters together in order to strengthen existing practices. Meanwhile, we retain our full jurisdiction over our own 12 miles. As I said, my right hon. Friend will be making a statement before long about additional fishery protection measures.

Mr. Milne: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that the real architect of this betrayal of the long-term interests of Britain's fishing communities is his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, whose intrusion into this matter laid the foundations of the agreement? In a metaphorical sense, ought we not to have the organ-grinder at the Dispatch Box today rather than the monkey?

Mr. Rippon: I suspect that, whatever statement I might have made, the hon. Gentleman would have been somewhat dissatisfied. I do not think that any useful comment can be made on his observations.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that within the next 11 years, while we maintain the status quo, there is no reason whatever why investment should not continue in the inshore fishing industry? Second, will he confirm that the arrangements obtaining now for the Minches are perfectly satisfactory to maintain both the breeding ground and the catching ground for herring?

Mr. Rippon: I am glad to give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks as regards the Minches. We are quite clear about that. I hope that investment will


continue. Indeed, one of the reasons why there are objections to permanent arrangements in many of these fields is that one wants some flexibility for the future. I know that the Republic of Ireland is anxious to develop its fishing industry. There may be more to protect in 10 years than we have now. I hope that that will be the case.

Mr. McNamara: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take it that in at least parts of Humberside and the East Yorkshire coast the agreement which he has brought back will be viewed with great hostility? He has not yet been able to say whether, after 10 years, the status quo as he has agreed it will be maintained if the British Government want it against all the odds. He has yet to make that point. Further, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that his statement about preserving the rights of the deep-sea fleet will be of little consequence if Norway does not sign the agreement and goes for the 50-mile limit, and if the Faroes and Greenland seek to follow the example of Iceland and go for the 50-mile limit? Will he realise that the threat to our deep-sea fishermen which he has brought back is, if anything, greater for them than it is for the inshore fleet?

Mr. Rippon: That is an extraordinary, mixed up statement, which is very far from the real facts of the situation. From the Humber to the Wash, for example, as far as we can estimate the position, between six and 12 miles, the total value of the catch is £12,000 a year. That would have to be generalised by existing members of the Community, subject to our retaining full jurisdiction over the 12 miles. I do not think that there is any great practical difficulty there. As to Norway, we have to have regard to the existing state of international law and the arguments that will go on in regard to Iceland in any event about the position in international law on unilateral extension of rights. Our deep-sea fishermen would clearly be in a better position if there were general agreement not to extend rights beyond the 12 mile limit. That must improve the position.

Sir Robin Turton: Did my right hon. and learned Friend make it clear to the Six that we could not abandon our slaughter policy against foot-and-mouth

disease, nor could we import vaccinated animals in the next five-year period or in any period after that without damaging irreparably our livestock export trade?

Mr. Rippon: Yes, Sir. That is what we were seeking to do. We asserted both those statements, but as practice is developing all the time and people are seeking new methods, we have agreed that before the end of the five-year period there should be a general review, but the object is to raise standards, not in any sense to lower them. Unless there is agreement at some time that a change is desirable, we shall maintain our present standards.

Mr. Shore: Is not the situation that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has negotiated a derogation from the Common Market regulations on fisheries and that at the end of the 10-year period the normal rule will be reimposed unless a new agreement is reached by unanimous consent? The right hon. and learned Gentleman tells us that we can exert our national veto on overriding national interests, but surely other nations can also say that it is in their overriding national interests that the existing fisheries regulations should continue? How do we then resolve a situation in which two nations each claim that a vital national interest is involved?

Mr. Rippon: In effect it would have to be resolved, as all other issues in the Community have been resolved, by a long negotiation in which every country seeks to protect its national interests as it sees them. The right hon. Gentleman is correct when he says that what we have negotiated is a derogation from the fisheries regulations, which amounts in effect to an amendment in the regulations to meet the needs of the applicants. That is why I think there was, as I said last time, so much theology about the matter, with the use of words like, "continuing subject to review", or "derogation", or whatever it may be. In practice, whatever the legal position, we will be able in 1982 to assert in the light of the Luxembourg agreement—that is, all that has happened since the Treaty of Rome was signed—the protection of our vital interests.

Mr. Evelyn King: Is it not a fact that nearly 80 per cent. of the fish we consume is deep-sea caught? If we add to that


the concessions my right hon. and learned Friend has secured in respect of inshore fishing, is not it clear that over 90 per cent. of our fish is being covered, and that where a Minister secures at any international negotiations 90 per cent. of what he sought he is doing well—and so the electorate will judge?

Mr. Rippon: As far as can be judged, the figure is about 98 per cent. of our total fishing catch.

Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the debate about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) asked him? Will he confirm statements that have come from Brussels following the negotiations that the intention is to sign the Treaty of Accession between 12th and 17th January, which would mean that if there is no debate on today's statement the Treaty would be signed without the House having had the opportunity to debate fisheries?
Recalling that in the debate on 28th October the subject of fisheries was largely left over until the negotiations had gone further, and recalling the very clear commitments he gave to the House as well as to his party conference, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should press the Leader of the House, who might like to rise to give the House some advice on the matter now, that we should have a debate, preferably before the House rises. I mean a proper debate, and not just having the matter raised in a scrappy way on the Consolidated Fund Bill. If such a debate has to be postponed until January, there should be an assurance that no signature will be put to the Treaty until we have had it.

Mr. Rippon: Questions of debate are not for me, but the agreements we have reached in Brussels over the past weekend, like all the others we have reached, are all subject to legislation which will be required after the signing of the Treaty.

Mr. Harold Wilson: That answer is not good enough. In the debate on 28th October a number of hon. Members on both sides made it clear that they were not only suspicious but had good reason to think that the question of fisheries had been deliberately postponed until after that debate. This statement had been put

out from Brussels sources not from the Government. No attempt was made to gainsay what was said by hon. Members on both sides. That means, therefore, that the debate on 28th October was incomplete in respect of fisheries. Since the right hon. and learned Gentleman has manifestly not satisfied the whole House on the question, which is something of an understatement about the reception of what he said, will the Leader of the House tell us that he is willing to have talks immediately through the usual channels on the matter?

Mr. Rippon: May I first say that the right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in saying that the matter was deliberately postponed. I think that everyone fully understood the position in October. It was a difficult matter of great importance not only to our fishing interests but to the applicant countries, and therefore had to await the opportunity for a multinational negotiation.

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order. As this is the last time we shall have an opportunity to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to speak to the Leader of the House before the Government propose to take executive action to sign the Treaty of Accession, denying the House a further opportunity to pass judgment on this development, is not it incumbent on the Leader of the House to rise now and answer the question of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The answer quite briefly, within the rules of order, is, "No".

Mr. Harold Wilson: On another point of order. Whilst what my hon. Friend said may not be a point of order, as you have ruled, Mr. Speaker, the House will wish to proceed to the very important business from now until the Adjournment next week in the most orderly and procedural way, which will be extremely difficult if the Leader of the House cannot agree at least to enter into talks through the usual channels for either a debate before Christmas or an undertaking that the Treaty will not be signed until we have had the debate.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): At this stage may


I say that I am always prepared to enter into discussions—always have been and always will be.

Mr. Nott: On a point of order. I realise that there is a great deal of business to conduct, Mr. Speaker, but I represent much the largest fishing port in the South-West—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It looks very much as though the hon. Gentleman is about to complain that I did not call him to ask a supplementary question. That is not a point of order.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, I wish to make a statement.
It has long been the practice under successive Administrations for Ministers to arrange for Questions to be tabled by hon. Members to enable them to make announcements which would not have justified a statement after Questions but which in their view should first be made to the House.
Likewise, supporters of successive Governments have sought to ensure that Question Time should not be monopolised by opponents of the Government of the day, and they have accordingly consulted Ministers as to what Questions they might ask to ensure a fairer presentation of the work of a particular Department.
By the same token it has been the normal practice for Ministers to instruct their officials to provide the necessary material for arranged Questions.
When my Department was first order for Questions on 10th March and again on 31st March there was what I can only call a concerted campaign by the Opposition to pre-empt the Order Paper—[Interruption.]—with Questions on housing and construction matters. On 10th March Opposition Questions in this field which received an Oral Answer outnumbered those answered orally to Government supporters by 15 to 1. On 31st March there was a similar effort by the Opposition to pre-empt the Order Paper with Questions mainly directed towards housing in London, perhaps with the impending London borough elections in mind. Opposition Questions on housing

and construction which received an Oral Answer then outnumbered orally-answered Questions from the Government side of the House by 15 to 5.
In response to this hon. Members on this side of the House expressed to Ministers their wish to see that this campaign was answered—[Interruption.]—and asked for suggestions as to Questions they might table which would help to redress the balance and present the Government's activities in housing more fairly. My right hon. Friend—[Interruption]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members really must allow the Secretary of State to make his statement. [Interruption.] Order. I have seen both sides of this question and I am now interested in hearing the Secretary of State's statement.

Mr. Walker: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction took the necessary steps to meet this request, with the result that on 28th April 21 Questions on housing and construction matters tabled by hon. Members on this side of the House were reached. Of these, 10 were provided on the basis of material coming from my right hon. Friend.
On 19th May, when the Department was again first order, seven Questions on the subject of housing and construction from the Government side of the House were answered orally, of which two were based upon material similarly supplied. By this time it was becoming clear that, perhaps because the local elections were over, the Opposition were discontinuing their campaign to pre-empt an unfair share of the Order Paper. My right hon. Friend followed suit, and since 5th May no similar Questions have been tabled, though arrangements have continued for the collection of material in case of a recurrence.
From what I have said it will be seen that my right hon. Friend joined with members of the parliamentary party to redress the balance; that when there was no longer need for this to be done no further action was taken; and that already before the date of the minute that was reproduced in newspapers yesterday no Questions were being tabled by Members of Parliament which had been prepared from the supply arranged to meet


the Opposition campaign of pre-emption—and none has been tabled since. The Government hold that a Minister is entitled to defend the policies and activities of his Department against attack, and, where the circumstances demand it, to call on the resources of his Department for this purpose. That is what my right hon. Friend did.

Mr. Crosland: We have just listened to a ludicrous and wholly unjustified statement. I object strongly to this statement not being made by the Prime Minister. This matter affects not simply the Department of the Environment but the privileges of Parliament and the integrity of the Civil Service, and the Prime Minister should have made the statement.
I have two questions. First, of course it is well known that Ministers have always encouraged Parliamentary Private Secretaries or Whips, as the case may be, to put down Questions from their own side of the House, but is it not the case that we have here a deliberate and organised use of formal Civil Service machinery for the party purpose of preventing Opposition questioning? It is quite irrelevant how many Questions the notice in the newspapers gave rise to; the fact is that the attempt was made. What the House wants to know is what the Prime Minister proposes to do about it.
Does not the Prime Minister know that this organised use of official machinery is not, as the Secretary of State tried to pretend, normal practice? If he does not believe ex-Ministers on this subject, would he believe the testimony over the weekend given by the noble Lady, Baroness Sharp, who said that in a lifetime's experience at the Ministry of Housing she had never known anything like this to happen? The Prime Minister fought the General Election as a man of principle and is constantly lecturing us about integrity and open government. What does he now propose to do about this? The matter cannot be left here. There must be some form of inquiry, whether by Select Committee or other means, to establish once and for all what is in order and what is not.
Secondly, we have here a group of Ministers who so lack faith in their ability to cope with Opposition Questions that they were prepared to use Civil Service

machinery to protect themselves. I accept the tribute to the Opposition, and I certainly appreciate that these Ministers thoroughly need protecting, particularly on the Housing Finance Bill and on the fair rents policy. But what does the Prime Minister think of Ministers who so openly confess their incompetence and unfitness for office? If they will not resign themselves, why does he not sack them?

Mr. Walker: I would describe the right hon. Gentleman's views as complete and utter humbug. He well knows that this practice has been used. I would point out that he was in charge of the Opposition when they quite blatantly, on two occasions before the local government elections, tried to pre-empt the Order Paper. As to his tribute to the Opposition, I would point out that on 18th February, for first order the Labour Party tabled 26 Questions on housing and construction and on 11 th March 52 Questions. After the elections the figures dropped to eight and six.

Mr. John Hall: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the rather curious fact that the alleged reproductions of the memorandum which appeared in the Sunday Times and in the Sunday Telegraph are not identical? If he examines the two reproductions, he will find differences both in the letter of reference and in the signature, which indicates that one of these letters is not genuine. Would he care to investigate that?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. It would appear that one of them is a copy of the original and that the other is a forgery.

Mr. Crosland: Does not this further strengthen the case for some committee of inquiry? Did not the right hon. Gentleman totally distort what I said was the normal practice? Is it not the case that Baroness Sharp, apart from any other witness, has made it clear that what has happened in the Department for the Environment is recent months is not normal practice and was a practice never known to her in her lifetime in the Civil Service? Does not that strengthen the case for the Prime Minister to answer these questions and to say that he will set up a committee of inquiry?

Mr. Walker: I am given to understand that Baroness Sharp was not asked by the Sunday Times to comment on


the practice as it was outlined in its article. She was asked whether she would not consider it an outrageous practice if a Department, every time that it came to the top of Questions, got its civil servants to supply loads of Questions in order to stop the Opposition getting in. She was not given details of the Department. She was not told that it had happened only on two occasions following an outrageous campaign by the Opposition to pre-empt Questions.

Mr. Longden: What is the difference between a civil servant being required to brief his Minister so as to enable that Minister to explain and defend his policy in the country and in order to enable him to explain and defend his policy in this House?

Mr. Thorpe: Leaving aside the right hon. Gentleman's apparent dissatisfaction with the level of activity of his right hon. and hon. Friends, is he aware that there are situations when Ministers sometimes admit that they were wrong and other occasions when they seek to brazen it out, and that many of us believe that this is the latter case? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no precedent for the regular use of civil servants in order deliberately to forestall the activities of the Opposition? Since, Mr. Speaker, I hope later to be allowed to make a submission to you on the precedents of this House, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we regard this not as a matter for him but as a matter to which the Prime Minister should direct his attention? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, finally, that in the light of his statement, speaking for myself at least, no useful purpose will be served in questioning him further?

Mr. Walker: It certainly was not the case that civil servants were used regularly to forestall opposition Questions. They were used—[Interruption.] They were used—

Hon. Members: Resign.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the House will not allow the Minister to reply, I shall go on to the next business.

Mr. Walker: They were used by my right hon. Friend in order to see that a proper balance was restored after the

attempts of the Opposition to pre-empt Questions.

Mr. William Clark: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that one of the serious matters in this episode, irrespective of the context of the photographed letter, is that a departmental letter can be released to the Press? Who released it to the Press? Was it a civil servant? Is this matter being investigated?

Mr. Walker: Yes, sir. Inquiries are taking place.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that in all my years in this House I have never known this to take place? The Minister has deliberately confused the House today with his smooth political trickery, which simply will not do. Is he aware that for the first time in my experience, civil servants have been brought in deliberately to a party political campaign in order to cover up for the inefficiency of his hon. Friends on the back benches? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, finally, that when the Prime Minister talks again about honest and open government, we shall tell him outside what we dare not tell him inside the Chamber, that he is a bloody liar?

Mr. Walker: On this occasion, quite correctly, my Department was used to defend the position of the Department.

Mr. Tebbit: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we on this side of the House require no assistance from any civil servant to do what we think is right, which is what I shall continue to do and what I shall continue to encourage my hon. Friends to do—namely, to table Questions to my right hon. and hon. Friends designed to elicit information that the public should have and designed to impress upon my right hon. and hon. Friends policies that they should follow—and that, unlike the rubbishy shower on the benches opposite, we shall do this regardless of whether we are approaching local government elections?

Mr. Jay: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to have admitted—we had better have this quite clear—the authenticity of at least one of the documents published in the Sunday Press? If that is so, is not that an unanswerable case for an inquiry?

Mr. Walker: As to the security aspects of such documents being released, an inquiry is taking place. As to the document itself, I think that I have stated clearly that, since even before the minute was sent by one official to another, the practice of any Questions being provided from my Department in this way has ceased.

Mr. Jennings: Amidst the welter of charge and counter-charge on this issue, is it not apparent that the real issue at stake is the use and misuse of Question Time? Is my right hon. Friend aware that Question Time is a recognised device whereby hon. Members seek information, whereby hon. Members press or criticise the Government and, above all, whereby hon. Members, if necessary, try to curb the power of the Executive? Where practices of the kind alleged take place—

Mr. C. Pannell: Is this a question?

Mr. Jennings: It is a question. Where practices of the kind alleged take place, are not the rights of the ordinary backbench Member not to be organised by any group on either side of the House at stake? Therefore, in any future action on this episode, or anything like it, must not the integrity and the value of Question Time be safeguarded?

Mr. Walker: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I hope that the Opposition will take note of his remarks.

Mr. Harold Wilson: First, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the terms of his statement, which appears to carry a very serious slur upon his hon. Friends in that they seem incapable, through either ignorance or unconcern, of putting down their own Questions on housing and need the help of his officials?
Secondly, I have no doubt that in referring to local government elections the right hon. Gentleman will have studied the precedents. Is he aware that when there was a tremendous rash of Scottish Questions from Opposition hon. Members before the Scottish local elections in 1969, which ended as quickly as they had begun after the elections were over, there was no use of officials in the Scottish Office for the purpose of inspiring Questions? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, further, that Scottish

Conservative hon. Members knew enough about the subject to put down their own Questions?
Thirdly, in view of the very serious implications, not least those raised by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings), will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to discuss with his right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House and any others concerned, especially as there have been charges and hints about past practices and changes in practice, the possibility of the reference of this matter to a Select Committee of this House? In my view this matter should be referred to the Committee of Privileges or possibly the Select Committee on Procedure; or a special committee set up for the purpose. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, since he maintains there is no change in practice, that this is very sharply contested from this side of the House and that the right guidelines and rules as to what is permissible ought to be laid down for the House by a Select Committee?

Mr. Walker: As to investigations into the practices of this House, in the matters of inspired Questions and placing Questions, it is up to the House to decide whether it wants further inquiries. I am satisfied that in this instance we maintained the normal principles—[Interruption.]—and my right hon. Friend was perfectly correct.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a day for Private Members' Motions and I must try to protect those.

Mr. Strauss: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would submit that the matter raised is a proper one for your consideration as to whether it should be considered by the Committee of Privileges. I do not want to elaborate the case but the essence of privilege is that there should be no interference with or impediment placed on hon. Members of this House in carrying out the parliamentary responsibilities. I submit that we have a situation here in which a Minister, together with his civil servants, has entered into a conspiracy to impede hon. Members of the Opposition from carrying out their responsibilities. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider this matter and, in


the normal way, report way, report to the House tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already made one mistake because matters of privilege should be raised after an application under Standing Order No. 9. I shall take note of what the right hon. Member has said and rule on it tomorrow.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. McNamara: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the failure of Her Majesty's Government to obtain satisfactory arrangements for the British fishing industry in near, middle and distant waters before the signing of the Treaty of Accession to the Treaty of Rome.
It is urgent because no time for a specific debate on this topic has been given before the signature to the Treaty of Accession. It is specific, as we all know. It is of public importance because of the lamentable failure of the Government to protect the long-term safeguards of the inshore industry; and, because of the failure of Norway to accept the proposals, it creates a considerable danger to the future prosperity of the inshore fleet.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the failure of Her Majesty's Government to obtain satisfactory arrangements for the British fishing industry in near, middle and distant waters before the signing of the Treaty of Accession to the Treaty of Rome.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me early notice of his intention to do this, and I must point out that if other hon. Members ask permission to make the same application, I take the first in time. I have had some time to consider this matter and some time also to consider the other opportunities this week for debating this matter. I have also listened to the exchanges today and, in the circumstances, I cannot grant the hon. Member's application.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Thorpe: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the action of the Secretary of State for the Environment in instructing Civil Servants to draft Questions with the express object of forestalling, obstructing and limiting the legitimate rights of hon. Members at Question Time.
It is not necessary to say much by way of amplification in view of the exchanges which have taken place. We have heard since those exchanges, the allegation that one document which appeared in the Press is apparently a forgery. We have heard it asserted by the Minister that, in his view, this does not depart from normal practice; that it is hallowed by usage. If this is so, it seems right and proper that it should be discussed. The fact that it has not been operated very often does not seem justification by way of diminution.
All these matters—the integrity of the Civil Service and its independence from the party battles, the rights of all hon. Members who are entitled, with equal opportunities, to place Questions—are matters of grave, constitutional importance which this House should debate.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the action of the Secretary of State for the Environment in instructing Civil Servants to draft Questions with the express object of forestalling, obstructing and limiting the legitimate rights of hon. Members at Question Time.
It is not for me to express an opinion as to whether this matter should be debated, or to comment on the seriousness of this matter. I simply have to make a procedural decision as to whether I think a Standing Order No. 9 debate—if the right hon. Gentleman gets the leave of the House—is the right way to deal with this matter. I do not think that it is, and therefore I cannot allow this application.

Mr. Thorpe: Accepting your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully ask that,


further to the application by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), you will take into account the precedent set by your predecessor, Mr. Speaker Brand, in 1877, who ruled according to the 18th Edition of Erskine May, Chapter 19, Page 429, paragraph 6, that any Member wilfully and persistently obstructing public business without just and reasonable cause is guilty of the contempt of this House and would be liable to such punishment, whether by censure, by suspension from the services of the House, or by commitment as the House may judge. It is not for me to suggest whether obstruction is or is not covered, but on the precedent of the case of Mr. Parnell, who was then hon. Member for Meath, who expressed his satisfaction in preventing and thwarting the intentions of the Government, a consideration of that point is relevant in this case. The House would be very much in your debt if you were able, after due reflection, to give your Ruling on this matter tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: I shall consider the Matter. I should perhaps have said, in refusing the right hon. Gentleman's application, that it has been raised as a matter of privilege.

Mr. English: Further to that point of order. Since the Secretary of State made it clear that the Civil Service is continuing to prepare Questions and thus the taxpayers' money was being expended, although not necessarily used, would you consider referring the matter to the Comptroller and Auditor General?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must have regularity in this matter. It is now raised as a matter of privilege, and I cannot therefore allow further questions today.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order. Perhaps because of the heat and turmoil to which you have been exposed this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, the usual practice has not been followed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) who raised the question of privilege did not obey the usual custom of the House which is to draw to the attention of the House the breach of privilege complained of.
It has been the custom for many generations for hon. Members to produce

evidence to the House, to submit to the House a paper, not part of a paper, not one's opinions. With great respect, the right hon. Member for Vauxhall and the Leader of the Liberal Party have not done this. This matter has arisen from documents published in the Press. We say that there must be a prima facie breach of privilege, because we know that official documents have been published. Some are authentic, some are forgeries. Inquiries are going on and I would submit that the reports in the Sunday Times and the Sunday Telegraph should be borne in mind when you consider this question.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising these points because they are good ones. I am advised that privilege can be raised orally but I am not unaware of the publication of those two newspapers.

Mr. Molloy: When my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) raised his point of order you said that you would consider many of the things that he had to say and inform the House tomorrow. May I point out that the Minister made special reference to London Members of Parliament and inferred that they were doing something wrong in asking Question about housing conditions in their constituencies? Because such constituents have suffered in a most deplorable manner as a result of the activities of Conservative councils, London Members have quite naturally felt they had every right to table Questions about such matters. May I ask you to consider that aspect? Is it not quite wrong that any London Member should be threatened by a Minister of the Crown for putting down Questions concerning his constituents?

Mr. Speaker: I will certainly include that in my consideration.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order. The House is awaiting the Ruling you will give tomorrow on the question of the prima facie breach of privilege raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss). Could you give us guidance on another related matter? If by any chance you were to rule that a prima facie case did not arise—and many of us, with respect, would consider that the best way of dealing with the matter—would it be in order for hon. Members


to propose tomorrow that the matter might be raised under Standing Order No. 9 if it was not to be dealt with primarily as a question of privilege?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that that is a hypothetical question. I will deal with the situation when it arises.

Mr. C. Pannell: Further to that point of order. You may remember that the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) raised this earlier, a bit out of time, but do I understand from your last remarks that you have accepted the remit to tell us tomorrow whether you think this is a matter of privilege?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I have.

EXPORTS

5.3 p.m.

Mr. John Hannam: I beg to move,
That this House, whilst recognising the valuable efforts of Great Britain's exporters, is conscious of the changing attitudes following the imposition of the United States surcharge; believes that if we are to increase our share of world exports, then more assistance needs to be given in the areas of credit finance and investment; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to carry out the fullest possible study.
In raising this matter I wish to draw attention to the changing nature of world trade and to suggest measures which, if adopted by the Government, would assist our exporters to recapture our share of world markets which has declined so steadily in recent years. Much is being done by my hon. Friend's Department to assist British firms in selling their goods abroad, but the American surcharge has created new opportunities in areas of the world where hitherto American domination has reigned supreme.
If we are to establish a stronger hold in those trading markets, then a keener edge needs to be applied to our competitiveness, not so much in the techniques of selling but in providing systems of credit financing and investment aids, trade missions and consultancy advice which will fit into new and changing world conditions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) has also tabled a Motion relating to investment levels and their effects on exports. I hope that if he succeeds in catching your eye he will contribute some valuable observations on the subject of investment.
As we look at the world trading scene it is apparent that a structural change is taking place. Under-developed countries, totally reliant in the past on the sale of natural resources in exchange for imported consumer goods are beginning to set up their own manufacturing infrastructures and they are in the market not for shoes, plastics and textiles from this country, but for the invisible exports such as knowhow, shared technology, machine tools and financial investment. In Europe our access to that vast high-quality consumer market will ensure a decade of new challenges and opportunities, yet with very little time in hand before in 1973 our manufacturers, large


and small, find themselves subjected to the full weight of continental competition albeit within the E.E.C. tariff wall. I feel that there are Government initiatives which can be taken to assist in obtaining a fair share of this great market.
In the United States of America—our single largest exporting market worth over £1,000 million-worth of exports in the last year to June 1971—the threat of recent fiscal protectionist measures is serious enough to warrant the strongest possible protests by my right hon. Friend. The flagrant violation of the rules of G.A.T.T. adds up to an increase in net cost on a £1,000 price of British capital machinery of over £160—in other words, a price preference to the domestic American equipment supplier of over 25 per cent. We would all agree that it is desirable to avoid a trade war developing with ourselves and other trading nations adopting similar protectionist measures. I am sure that the Chancellor has made Britain's position clear, and I hope that in the forthcoming talks between the Prime Minister and the President it is pointed out that one of the major causes of Britain's lack of investment confidence is the continuing instability in world currencies and the uncertainties surrounding our trading relationships with the United States.
In any case the main cause of the United States' predicament is its obsession with and exploitation of overseas investment in industry. Servan Schreiber's fear of the American challenge has proved to be well founded although not in the way he expected. He expected a threat to French and European industrial independence. What has happened has been a threat to America's own financial position—a case of "the biter biting his own hand". In this complex area of world exporting where one country's gain is another's deficit it is essential that our country, an advanced industrial manufacturing nation with limited natural resources must in the next few years produce a substantial gain in real terms in foreign earnings if we are to withstand the effects not only of a certain rise in the amount of imported goods as our tariffs are reduced, following entry into the E.E.C., but also the cost of agricultural support across our balances.
The present outstandingly large balance of payments surpluses must certainly be undermined in the near future when the inflation and cost increases of 1970–71 work their way through into export prices.
Looking at the present export situation, one can only pay the fullest compliment to our firms and their overseas salesmen, be they engaged in visible or invisible earnings, for despite changing circumstances and a certain amount of exploitation of international credit arrangements by our rivals, our exports have actually risen sharply since the disastrous year of 1967 when they actually fell back.
Britain's percentage increase of 7·4 per cent. over 1969–70 compares unfavourably with the increase in world exports of 14·1 per cent. The United Kingdom's percentage share of world exports has dropped from 8·1 per cent. in 1964 to 6·2 per cent. in 1970. This continuing downward trend, although hard to reverse, must be at least halted and I should like to submit some suggestions for the consideration of my hon. and right hon. Friends and the House.
First, I wish to deal with the subject of direct visible exporting. On the face of it we see an extremely healthy position with Britain's economy now stronger than at any time during the last 10 years. There is a massive balance of payments surplus—possibly the first time since the Armada, that we have had two successive years of visible surplus. There is gradually reviving demand at home and wage inflation is at last showing some signs of slowing down. Yet, despite the magnificent efforts of our exporters in achieving those increases in real terms, the factors governing our future medium-term export position present an ominiously worrying picture. Industrial investment, a key factor in our future competitive position, is far too low, and has been so for far too long. Industrial investment in Britain declined steadily after the "squeeze and freeze" policy of the early 1960s, revived in 1964–65 under the impetus of the reflationary measures of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling). but has been moving sideways ever since. Some revival is evident, but is confined mainly to manufacturers of consumer durable goods.
Why does British industry invest so little? The United Kingdom spends about 23 per cent. of its national income on grossed fixed investment; Germany 29 per cent.; France 32 per cent.; and Japan no less than 44 per cent. "Stop-go" must bear some blame for lagging industrial investment. Few things are better calculated to inhibit long-term planning than short bursts of prosperity followed by short bouts of severe restraint.
But the principal cause of Britain's stagnant investment must be the decline in profits earned by industry. Since the middle 1960s, industrial profits have been taking a steadily smaller share of the United Kingdom's income, and this decline must be reversed and must be seen to be reversed before industrial investment will revive. The penalty of low investment is not just recession among capital goods suppliers, which is important enough. The real cost of current low investment lies in the damage being done to Britain's international competitive position, of which the full extent will emerge only several years from now.
If we combine this factor with higher production costs resulting from the wage and cost inflation of the last two years and the protective defences being erected or created around two of the largest consumer markets—America and Japan—it is obvious that if we are to hold our own during the immediate short-term future some adjustments must be made to our present systems of export finances and assistance.
Since the mid-1950s a significant trend has emerged in international trade financing. There has been a growing tendency to conduct export business on the basis of ever-lengthening deferred payment terms rather than on a cash basis. This trend has resulted from a number of factors, the most important being, first, the gradual emergence of a buyers' market for almost all types of goods traded internationally as a result of growing production in developed countries and the increasing industrialisation of a number of developing countries; secondly, ever keener competition among exporting countries to expand their existing markets and open up new ones in order to increase their share of international trade and maximise their foreign exchange earnings; and, thirdly, the difficulties experienced

by developing countries in financing imports of capital goods needed for the implementation of their development plans.
During the immediate post-war period developing countries tended to concentrate their efforts on industrialisation of import-substitution industries rather than on export industries. However, with foreign exchange earnings expansion becoming a high priority in many second stage developing countries, the accent has swung towards the creation in recent years of exportable, non-traditional goods, such as chemicals, light engineering products, transport equipment and other capital goods. But with the harsh competition already existing in these export fields, these developing countries have been seeking new, advantageous financing and trading terms which would enable them to compete more readily with exporters in other established countries.
Therefore, there has been a subtle shift in emphasis in our exporting relationship which has not been totally reflected in our own credit financing arrangements and attitudes. The traditional British approach has been one of guaranteed Empire and Commonwealth markets based on a cash basis and, outside that, the reluctant provision of extended credit, always restrained because of our preoccupation with the balance of payments. The consequence was that we missed out badly in many of the developing countries because of our restrictive policies on overseas investment, combined with an obsession with Africa and constant fears concerning the stability of the economies of many other areas of much more rapid growth. The Middle East, South America and Indonesia are good examples.
During the 1950s and 1960s our competitors, with much more determination and hacking, seized many of the opportunities to create new plants and assemblies, often on a fifty-fifty basis with the national domestic companies. In Brazil, which I visited recently, and which was, until the war, dominated by British investment, it was very depressing to see new industries and new cities springing up everywhere with hardly a British firm to be seen. Yet that is a country which is just passing Japan in growth rate, with 95 million people, and an increasingly stable economy since the 1964 peaceful


revolution. The one millionth Volkswagen was sold recently. All of those cars were manufactured in Brazil. In the 10 days that I was there I saw only two British cars on the roads of the four major cities I visited, and both were pre-1960 models. There is no open sports car manufactured there, and I can only hope that British Leyland can see its way clear to seizing what might be the last chance to break into that massive market.
In passing, I wish to pay personal tribute to the hospitality shown the parliamentary delegation by the Brazilian Confederation of Industry.
Elsewhere in the world similar rapidly developing nations—for example, Indonesia—are wide open for British trade penetration. Yet we must accept that these areas are not quick, cash-return countries. What is needed is long term finance which must go hand-in-hand with our willingness to share our know-how and technologies with them. It is no longer a question of salesmen turning up with their suitcases of samples such as paint brushes, shirts, and so on; it is a question of skilful presentation of our latest engineering techniques, of our environmental control systems, advanced equipment for infrastructure development, drainage schemes, road and rail systems, industrial pollution control apparatus, hovercraft, Land Rovers, and so on. Many British products should be evident in these markets, but they are sadly lacking.
What can be done to help British exporters? First, I stress that there is already a vast range of services available in this country—from information provided by the Government Export Intelligence Service, from our newly orientated Diplomatic Service, which is fast developing a very keen nose for possible new projects, from our overseas chambers of commerce, the C.B.I. and all the private sector banking houses and the valuable voluntary work of those involved in the British National Export Council, now being replaced by the British Export Board, with its recently appointed Chairman Lord Thorneycroft.
I should like to say a few words about the sudden demise of the British National Export Council in May. From my experience with the Latin-American section, so ably led by James Longmore, I am

convinced that the expertise brought into our promotion of exports by the voluntary efforts of the teams of business men in the B.N.E.C. must not be lost. I therefore hope that Lord Thorneycroft and the British Export Board will quickly set about harnessing the enthusiasm of those experts. I also hope that the specialist regional activities of the B.N.E.C. will continue within the ambit of their continuing organisations.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will, I hope, say a few words about the rôle of the B.E.B. in maintaining and improving the export drive. What is necessary is a new look at the value of trade fairs and the methods used to bring important buyers and politicians from overseas into contact with our industries and latest developments. Having experienced the hospitality and organisation provided by less wealthy overseas hosts, I am often embarrassed by the difficulties we encounter when endeavouring to reciprocate the hospitality.
Turning to the definition of the role of the B.E.B., such matters as the allocation of funds, the mounting of exhibitions, the organisation of trade missions, and feeding back intelligence information can be handled competently and effectively by our civil servants. I find a growing conviction that the vast trade fair held every four or five years in order to show the flag is not so useful as taking part in technical exhibitions and trade missions of a semi-permanent nature. Often the criticism is heard abroad, "After the fair was over we heard nothing further from you until the next one". In fact, there was a great deal of follow-up by our trade attachés and individual firms, but I feel that more value can be obtained from constant participation in the specialist fairs and exhibitions.
With top-notch sales representatives and the latest technical equipment, a great number of sales can be made. May we have leading members of the Government visiting Latin-America and other rich markets? Royal visits in the past have always stimulated interest in Britain, but now we must talk trade at the highest possible level. I would express the hope that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would consider, for instance, a visit to Brazil in 1974 when we shall be holding our next major trade fair in Sao Paulo—and possibly he could bring back


a little silverware from the Rio yacht race at the same time.
With information, trade fairs and missions, then, we are reasonably well served. Now I should like to turn to our credit financing arrangements. As I mentioned earlier, important changes have taken place in the international trading scene. A fierce international credit war has been waged with certain other countries sinning against the much battered G.A.T.T. rules. I am not advocating our joining the sinners, but it is, I believe, vitally important that a new set of rules for export credits should be drawn up. The E.E.C. will offer an opportunity for a constructive, collective approach to halting this export credit battle. However, if one talks to British exporters after we have lost a large export order one hears the general complaint that they could have won the order if competitors had not been offering credit terms which were tantamount to bribery. It is an urgent necessity, I would suggest, that we look carefully at some of the restrictions which we impose upon ourselves in this field of capital goods exporting.
Much export credit finance in Britain is very simple indeed, with the manufacturer being paid as soon as he puts his goods on board ship. Our main clearing banks, although providing most of our export finance, are still clinging to their policy of refusing to borrow short and lend long. The Export Credits Guarantee Department was founded to give the banks a secure basis on which to do just that by giving cover against the three main risks involved—the refusal of the buyer to accept the goods exported; the default of the buyer; political risks, which usually mean exchange controls. The E.C.G.D. does not itself provide finance but is an insurance agency. The British Government unlike some other countries, notably France, do not subsidise export finance directly but rather lean on our wide range of British banks to provide an indirect subsidy. The various different forms of banking finance available—there are over 800 export houses of one form or another—mean that in this country we have probably one of the most extensive ranges of facilities in the world. So when we are considering the methods by which we could improve our system of credit finance it is important that we clarify E.C.G.D.'s position.
This well-establishment department, the oldest and probably the best of the world's cover institutions, can hardly be faulted in its application of the existing rules and regulations. E.C.G.D. is also assuming new functions, one of which will be administering the new investment insurance scheme which is expected to start operating next spring, but I believe that, bearing in mind the changes taking place in world trading, and the effects of the U.S. surcharge both on our own share of the U.S. consumer market and on the attitudes of the developing trading nations towards this country as an alternative trading partner, E.C.G.D., as our Government's export financing department, needs to be expanding its range of services and speeding up the processes of evaluation of credit applications.
If any criticism can be levelled at E.C.G.D. it is of the slowness of its procedures, and of too much form-filling, and of a lack of flexibility in dealing with the new forms of barter trading developing in East-West and developing countries' trade. The C.B.I. is pressing for insurance against currency risks and a relaxation of exchange control regulations to allow forward cover at the tender stage rather than waiting until a contract is signed.
From accounts I have received from a constituency firm, and another in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), and from discussions I have had with trade representatives abroad, I am convinced that there is some justification for such criticisms. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has been most helpful in dealing with those cases, but my concern remains that, just at the time when this vital exporting department should be gearing up and increasing its staff and facilities, it may be understaffed and over-worked. I hope I shall be given a reassurance that E.C.G.D. will not be under any restraint in this respect. It would be sinking the ship for a ha'pworth of tar if this important department were not allowed to expand its insurance activities through shortage of staff.
The question of barter agreements is also worrying. The growing development of trade with countries which, because of shortages of sterling and other foreign


currencies, are having to arrange two-way and three-way barter deals and which, therefore, require the exporter to arrange his credit to cover payment via a third country, necessitates a relaxation of E.C.G.D. rules. Barter is generally effected against agricultural produce or prime minerals. Such commodities are generally sold through the international commodity exchanges in London and some continental centres. Generally, very substantial sums, running into many millions of pounds, are involved in the projects under review, and can represent several harvests or several years' production of the commodity to be bartered. In addition the commodity must be brought to the market in an orderly manner so as to maintain price stability and obtain the optimum income for the developing country.
It will be clear that a time lag generally develops which results from payment to equipment suppliers being due long before full counterpart value has been earned by sale of barter commodities. This basically presents no problem as bridging finance can generally be obtained in the City, the transaction as such being sound, provided that credit guarantee cover can be obtained through E.C.G.D. Unfortunately, as I understand it, such cover cannot be given by E.C.G.D. The case presented to me involved the supply of machinery from Britain amounting to some £5 million for a major irrigation project in Iraq. A barter of sulphur to Australia was arranged but would not be fully shipped till 1974, whereas the British machinery project had to be completed by 1972. The bridging finance was made available, but—and I quote from the E.C.D.E. letter—
The Department is not prepared to cover a transaction where payment is dependant for its timing or actuality upon the supply from the buying country of other goods.
In the event, after a year's hard work by all concerned, the Russians stepped in with credit, barter and technical assistance, and secured the contract.
The simple request, therefore, is for an amendment in the policy of E.C.G.D. to include barter transactions, even if these are restricted to capital goods sales to Governments of developing countries, and backed by guarantees from the central banks of such countries.
E.C.G.D., we can all agree, is a first rate organisation, but its job is definitely that of insurance and not banking, and it needs to adopt a less restrictive approach to the creditworthiness of smaller firms entering into the export field. Although the view is widely held that, because 70 per cent. of our exports are sold by just a few—some 500—large companies, small firms should not be encouraged to export. I do not hold that view. Japan is a clear example of a country which, through its trading houses, has encouraged and developed a high proportion of exports being manufactured by small firms. In the European Community also the small firm has played an ever increasing rôle in exports. E.C.G.D. offers it full range of export credit to the small firm, but I have come across small firms with limited liquid resources and balance sheet assets which have experienced great difficulty in obtaining credit guarantees despite the fact that a true valuation of their assets showed a substantial cover for the amount of credit required. I think, therefore, that generally E.C.G.D. is to be congratulated upon its work. Since 1947 its insurance business has grown from £88 million to £3,225 million last year. With a little expansion, some greater flexibility, and modification of its rules this department can, I am sure, continue to play its vital part in our export successes.
Moving on, briefly, from credit financing and insurance, I should like to touch upon another matter, which was referred to in the Bolton Report, and about which I have recently been in correspondence with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury. This concerns the need to give every possible assistance and advice to the small company wishing to expand and extend its activities into Europe. The Bolton Report says this:
Small firms will be involved to a greater degree in exporting if we become members of the enlarged European Economic Community, and it is of vital importance that the small firm should continue to be able to obtain its proper requirements if the country is to obtain the full benefit from entry into E.E.C. or indeed from increased activity in other export markets.
I have been essentially concerned at the need for an organisation to help British companies invest in Europe, especially the smaller companies which will be, and,


indeed, are already, looking for agency or associate company operations, and which will be requiring financing to, say, £100,000 or upwards. These companies will need service, advice, and planning help, combined with corporate finance assistance. So the organisation should not be just a banking organisation. Good local offices would need to be established in the different countries so that central sources of funds can be tapped for the British company.
The technical difficulties involved in starting such a new organisation from scratch would be immense. Having studied the various existing organisations which would be possible candidates for this crucially important task, I found one obvious candidate—an organisation established in 1953 by the Bank of England on Treasury initiative in order to provide means of access to the London capital market for industrial and commercial firms in Commonwealth countries, and generally to act as a lender of last resort in cases where normal market channels were not open to borrowers. This organisation, the Commonwealth Development Finance Company Limited, has just under half of its share capital subscribed by the Bank of England and the rest was raised from various large industrial firms and city institutions.
Here is a company—half Government, half private capital—desperately in need of a new rôole and objectives and ideal for an extension of its activities into helping British firms into Europe. It could be renamed the European and Commonwealth Development Finance Co. Ltd. and could still be financed through industry and the Bank of England, but with a new and dynamic management structure spearheading the development of that middle band of companies with annual turnovers of between £1 million and £50 million
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State probably cannot deal with this proposal today, but I hope that in the context of our general exporting objectives he will discuss this matter with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and inform me at a later date.
Finally, may I touch upon the mainstay of our overseas currency earnings—our invisibles. As we see the surplus from invisible earnings rising steadily

from £151 million in 1960 to over £600 million this year, our fullest congratulations must go to all the contributors—banks, insurance, tourism and travel. Yet for a long time our tax structure has not encouraged the growth of our investments abroad—investments which are now necessary in this changing scene of shared ownership of new technologies in the developing countries.
Is it not time now to show our faith in our invisible sector by removing the 25 per cent. surrender requirement on the dollar premium? If ever there was a time when our balance of payments was healthy enough to stand such a change in policy towards overseas investment, now is that time. Under this Government the rush by private individuals to take money out of the country to avoid excessive taxation has ended. Now is the moment to show our confidence in the future and to encourage investment in overseas developments which, in the course of a few years, will reap further dividends for this country. Trade follows investment, and much of our overseas investment which was destroyed in the war can now be built up again.
Drawing together the threads of my argument, I can see the opportunities lying before this country's exporters. Contrary to the famous words of a previous Prime Minister, exporting is not fun—it is hard work, often frustrating, but is exciting and stimulating in the challenge it offers.
With a little more help from the Government, there need not be so many frustrations, and yet we do not have to go further into an international credit rat-race. We can take the lead in the E.E.C. in drawing up a new set of rules for credit financing. But in the meantime, by lowering interest rates, setting up an interest equalisation account, removing the dollar premium, applying our overseas aid with some "credit tags" as the French are doing with their credit mix system, adjusting E.G.C.D. rules to cover barter trade, encouraging the smaller firm with help and advice, and reviewing our overseas sales promotion schemes, we can ensure that our exporters stay in the race.
I have outlined what I hope will be regarded by my hon. Friend and by the House as constructive suggestions and I


ask the Government to give them the closest study.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. Tom Normanton: I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. John Hannam) with sincere and deep regard for what he had to say. He struck many notes which I personally have experienced and which bring back memories—some painful, some satisfactory—stretching over the last 20 years—which is the period in which I personally have engaged in business, at a private business level and also in the consideration of policies at a national level.
My hon. Friend posed a number of problems and exposed certain difficulties. I am not certain that he presented all the answers, or sufficient answers, at this point of time. It may well be that his requests for help and guidance, whether related to large firms or small, will find a sympathetic hearing throughout the length and breadth of industry. I hope that this will prove to be the case because I am quite sure that this was in my hon. Friend's mind in drawing attention to various problems and in posing questions to which, one hopes, he will receive satisfactory answers. I do not intend to try to fill the gap by way of giving answers to the questions he posed, but I should like to add a number of problems to the list.
First, he mentioned the way in which British industry has been investing—and investing so inadequately. I do not in any way wish to be partisan on this occasion, although no doubt this is a highly political platform, but it would be unrealistic to let the occasion pass without pointing to the fact that for the last five or six years there has been a continuous erosion of the reserves of industry, particularly in regard to the small companies. It is only out of those reserves and the liquid reserves that investment can take place, again particularly in regard to small firms. In other words, the smaller company, which is inhibited by its structure from appealing to the capital market, must have access to sources of finance which are dependent on the liquidity of the company.
In the last five or six years we have seen, coupled with an ever-declining rate

of productivity, an ever-rising level of taxation. The impact of corporation tax on small companies and on all corporate entities is one of the causes for the low investment to which my hon. Friend has referred. It will take a long period of time, especially if we do not get on top of inflation, before we in industry feel that we have a chance to re-establish the kind of liquidity which is so essential for trade, whether that trade be national or international.
I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend pay his respects to John Bolton and the work of his Committee. I hope there will be an occasion when the House will be able to debate the Bolton Committee's Report at greater length because it highlighted many of the problems which affect not only small firms but all companies engaged in trade and industry.
I note one particular point emphasised by the Bolton Committee, which no doubt will find a sympathetic response from my hon. Friend; namely, that the small firm does not ask for treatment different from that which is established and available for all companies in the country. What we want to see is that industrial policies on a national basis are not formulated without regard to the requirements of small companies. Ministers in all Departments concerned in the formulation of such policies could ask themselves, before arriving at a final answer, "How will this affect the small firm?" If it disadvantages the small firm compared with the large one, I hope that Ministers will hesitate and reconsider their policies, and if necessary reconstitute them before officially announcing them as Government policies.
There are clearly areas in which the Government have an important rôle to play. The predominant one is in fiscal policy. In considering the corporate structure, I hope the Government will at an early date give very urgent consideration to redrafting company legislation, on the basis of which corporate entities are formed.
Many people in industry, particularly at national level, believe that the Companies Act, 1967, was either inadequately prepared or rushed through Parliament in advance of adequate preparatory work being completed. I therefore hope that the Minister, when replying to this point made by my hon. Friend the Member


for Exeter, will promise to reconsider and resubmit to the House proposals for company legislation.
A point we tend to ignore and one which becomes heavily emotive is the impact of estate and death duties on private companies. There is no sector of industry more adversely affected by this aspect of fiscal policy than the private and small company.
The importance of the small company, private as most of them are, should never be underestimated. We accept that exporting is almost invariably carried out by a small number of large firms, but behind them stands a vast number of sub-contractors and sub-sub-contractors. The vast majority of these are in the category of medium to medium-small firms. This should never be ignored and we should always pay respect to the contribution to our national earnings in exports made by these smaller firms.
In drafting fiscal policy the Government should bear in mind the practical effects of capital gains tax. I am not suggesting that this form of taxation should be abolished. Emotionally many of us might wish that that were done, but it would be unrealistic to suggest that it should or could be abolished. I know from speaking with a number of friends connected with companies—I am thinking particularly of friends in the accounting profession—that capital gains tax operates against the interests of industry generally and small businesses in particular.
It tends to freeze companies, first in the spheres in which they are engaged and second in the scope for mergers and fusions. A merger, takeover or acquisition among two, three or four firms can immediately give rise to a capital gains tax liability situation, and frequently this automatically inhibits the kind of development which may be industrially highly desirable for the British economy in the longer term.
We should not ignore in fiscal policy the question of surtax assessments or the writing back to the proprietor of liability to tax in certain situations which, frankly, I would regard as penalising him not just for having expended by the firm technically for his own benefit but for having invested for purposes in respect of which, in some cases, the inspector of

taxes questions whether the investment is in pursuance of expansion.
I hope the Government will lean over backwards in any case of possible doubt and will say that where any expenditure or so-called investment might be deemed to be in the interests of expansion, the benefit of doubt will be given to the proprietor and the company concerned.
What should be the policy of the Government in the area in which they have an enormous part to play as a customer or buyer? It has been the policy of Governments of both parties and of the Department of Trade and Industry to press forward with policies which one might describe as liberal. They have gone in for the liberalisation of international trade.
In some cases many people are influenced by the need more to help developing countries than to help Britain and British industry. Both are laudable motives and must be recognised. At the same time, in implementing policies in terms of international trade, I earnestly hope that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will recognise that a viable export industry depends on a viable, energetic and dynamic industry at home. One cannot allow a section of industry to be liquidated—I speak with particular reference to the textile industry—and at the same time expect to see it put up a worthwhile performance in the export market.
I hope the civil servants in the Department of Trade and Industry, who have tremendous influence in suggesting policy and certainly in implementing it, will have a close look at the kind of system which operates among the Six in the Common Market, for one has the impression that much more regard is given to representations from industries within those countries than British industry generally believes is the case in Britain. I do not say that this is the case—only that a wide section of industry believes that more regard is paid by the Commission to Common Market industries than appears to be the case here in Britain.
In this context, I hope that the Government, being the biggest single purchasing agency in this country—I am not suggesting that they should switch to a "buy British only" policy—will, where doing


so is not contrary to international interests, be a little more discriminating in their purchases than they have been in certain sections of industry and trade.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter referred to the rôle of the British Export Board. I am sure that industry as a whole wishes Lord Thorneycroft every success in the task to which he has set his hand. It is a major task and he will recognise the great contribution played in the past by the British National Export Council and those many men who served it as chairmen, members of Council and members of staff.
I have a suggestion to make about commercial counsellors. Before I entered this House in June I took a deep, active and intense interest in the export activities of my company and the industry in which it operates. I had considerable opportunity to make an assessment of the abilities of the different commercial counsellors in the various offices throughout Europe. There is far too wide a range in the abilities of those men to be completely satisfactory. The best are undoubtedly magnificent. I shall not mention any particular office, but I owe a great debt to the men that I met for the way in which they introduced me to their field, their enthusiasm and for the deep and intense contribution that they were able to make. To them I pay my respects. That is precisely what we should expect to find from these commercial counsellors. But the general run are either inadequately briefed or inadequately trained, and, unfortunately perhaps, because most of them are professional civil servants—with respect to that extremely worthy body, the Civil Service—are not the right kind of people with the right kind of training for that important rôle.
This rôle could be filled far more effectively were men to be drawn from industry, perhaps, on entirely new bases of contract, on the basis of their experience in exporting. Those people should then be posted to the various embassies with briefs which may well be different from those which apply to the Civil Service counsellors who operate from these offices. The net result may well be that there would be losses for commercial reasons; men may be appointed and within a year may use the opportunities for their benefit rather than for the benefit

of industry at large. But at the end of the day, with the drawing from industry of export-minded and experienced men and posting them to offices in the various embassies, even if they are lost to the service, in the long run British industry will be the richer for their contribution.
Regarding the British national exhibition centre, it has been said very frequently in this Chamber that Britain has fallen to the end of the race for the provision of a suitable centre in which to hold not just national exhibitions but international exhibitions. Year after year I have visited the exhibition centre at Hanover. I confess to a feeling not of shame but of deep dismay when I look at the facilities available there and the way in which European industry tends to concentrate there, with the magnificent resources and facilities, even though perhaps Hanover could not be compared with the facilities—not exhibition facilities—available in London.
I earnestly hope that the Government will do all that they can to promote the establishment of a major exhibition centre in Britain, not only for national but for international exhibitions, for until we have European international exhibitions moving around Europe and including Britain, so long will Britain be an offshore island of the mainland of Europe. The establishment of the right sort of centre will be a major influence enabling British industry to export to that area to which we are soon to become linked.
Also regarding the E.E.C., visits to Brussels and discussions with officials of the Commission in the last few months have made me deeply aware of the demands which will be made upon our industry and civil servants, upon Government as a whole and upon all the institutions of this country, by our participation in and membership of the E.E.C. I earnestly hope that the Government will encourage industry to be willing to second experienced, energetic and dynamic representatives who could involve themselves in the manifold institutions of the Common Market, because it is in those areas that economic, commercial and financial policies will be developed. Unless from an industrial level there is the right sort of impact brought to bear, Britain will be a loser by participation in Europe instead of a beneficiary.


There are two areas calling for a growing attention and concern about Britain's industry and trade. One is the growth of State trading, and the other is the development of the so-called developing nations. The State trading countries and the developing nations are operating on economic formulae for trade which are basically totally different from our basis of costing; in other words, trade in their case is unrelated to cost of production but related to the ability to command a sale, and to command a sale for the purpose of winning foreign currency. I draw the attention of the Government to the urgent need for a reconsideration of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in this context, because there are sectors of British industry from which standards are being demanded, in terms of trading efficiency, by drawing comparisons of prices against which Britain has to compete for exports, whereas the criteria in both markets are completely different. I hope, therefore, that the G.A.T.T., when it is reviewed, will be the subject of reconsideration in the light of the growing expansion of trade between the developing countries and the State trading countries and those who, like Britain, believe in a free economy.
In conclusion, the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter has been valuable and constructive. I look forward very much to hearing the Minister's reply to the points raised by my hon. Friend. I hope that in such reply the interests of the small firm and the private firm will be very much in the forefront of the Minister's mind.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Dell: The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Norman-ton) has persuaded me to take part in the debate by somewhat widening it and introducing a slightly more controversial element than did the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. John Hannam). I had earlier been content to give the hon. Member for Exeter my silent support. His Motion is a good one and it should command the support of the House. The essence of the Motion is that the Government should stand behind and assist British exporters and that the Government, as far as they can, should make sure that British exporters remain competitive,

because by so doing the economy of Britain will benefit. I support that sentiment and I support the use of Government power for that purpose. The proposition that Government power should stand behind national exporters is a not entirely uncontroversial proposition on the Government side of the House. Nevertheless, I am glad to hear it coming from the hon. Member because it is an important point which has to be made from time to time.
I have spent a considerable part of my life in the exporting business, not with a small company but in a rather large company which may have been freer of the need for assistance from Government services than some of the companies to which the hon. Member for Cheadle has just referred. But nevertheless the same principle applies. The Government have a responsibility in this matter.
The hon. Gentleman decided to take the issue rather widely and raised certain questions with a distant relationship to the subject of the Motion. Not all his points were so distant from the essence of the Motion, and I want to make a few comments on what he said.
The hon. Gentleman proposed that there should be new companies legislation. I, too, think that there should be new companies legislation. We are all waiting for the Department of Trade and Industry to produce it. The hon. Gentleman wants the disclosure provisions in respect of small companies to be changed. I should be willing to consider such changes, on condition that the disclosure provisions of the 1967 Act in respect of larger companies were greatly improved. What has been shown in respect of the 1967 Act is, not that it was ill-thought-out, ill-prepared or ill-discussed, but that in respect of financial disclosure by large firms not sufficient was statutorily required. Too much was left to firms to decide in what form the financial disclosure should be made. One of the provisions in the Commission for Industry and Manpower Bill, which was before the House before the General Election, would have made it possible to require a higher standard of disclosure, at any rate from larger firms.
I hope that when the legislation is introduced it will contain something definite to require that improvement. Such an improvement would be very


relevant to the Government's competition legislation. Perhaps with good fortune we shall see such a provision in the Government's competition legislation, because such a provision is as relevant to competition legislation as it is to companies legislation.
The hon. Gentleman went on and, confessing that he was introducing a slight note of controversiality, attacked the Labour Government, by a reference to the last five or six years, for the present low level of investment, attributing it to the erosion of companies' reserves. The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The low level of investment at the moment is a matter of confidence—confidence in future prospects, confidence in future profitability. This is what governs investment.
Whatever the merits might be of the tax allowance system of investment incentives that the Government have introduced as compared with the previous system, if the hon. Gentleman is right that the present difficulty is the low level of company reserves it was a stupid moment for the present Government to make the change. I was interested to observe only recently that a leading official—I think that it was the chairman —of the Engineering Industries Association complained about this change. This association of small companies evidently had found the change to its disadvantage.

Mr. Normanton: My criticism was not about reserves in general but about the liquidity position, particularly of small firms. It is the liquidity position about which I am more deeply concerned. It is that, above all, which has inhibited investment. A company cannot invest if it does not have the wherewithal to do so.

Mr. Dell: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I do not think that that is the real difficulty that companies are facing. The real problem of investment at present is one of confidence. Confidence, as we learned so hard, is a matter very much in the Government's hands.
Then the hon. Gentleman talked about the liberalisation of trade and made the perfectly legitimate point that governments, in developing liberal world trading arrangements, must look after the interests of their own people. Indeed, the whole time there is a tension between

the requirements of governments to expand international trade, which has all the advantages of division of labour, greater efficiency, and specialisation, on the one hand, and the impact which in certain circumstances liberal trade can have for the home country, on the other. Governments have democratic responsibilities to their own people which can come into conflict with certain of the results or implications of free international trade agreements.
What we want from the Government—after all, these matters have been raised by the hon. Gentleman—is a statement of what attitude they have to the present crisis in international trade. That great power, the United States, although it must import a large quantity of raw materials, and although a certain section of its gross national product is provided in the course of international trade, is nevertheless much more independent of international trade than we are. It has not merely imposed a surcharge but has imposed a tax preference to the benefit of United States capital goods. This has widespread implications for us.
In this situation clearly the Government must defend British interests, but I hope that the Minister will be able to say that he sees the possibility of a settlement of the current crisis shortly which will be consistent with the future development of international trade; because all hon. Members will agree that the development of international trade since the war has been to the benefit of all countries which have taken part in it.
Lastly, both hon. Members opposite referred to the developing countries. I hope that the Government, although appreciating their responsibilities towards the people of this country, who are their primary responsibility, will not forget their responsibilities to the people of the developing countries. Indeed, only the other night the Government showed that they had not forgotten them by introducing the scheme for generalised preferences, which the House adopted, though with expressions of concern by some hon. Members opposite.
There are two matters in respect of the position of developing countries in international trade which the Government should bear in mind. I hope that the Government will be able to adopt the position in dealing with the question of


international reserves, which finance world trade, that the creation of new reserves should be linked to the financing of development. This proposition has been put forward in U.N.C.T.A.D. and I hope will have sympathetic reception in Government circles here.
I hope that it will be borne in mind, following the imposition of the surcharge by the United States, that the developing countries may have a part to play in resolving the resulting international difficulties. It is not just a matter of a bilateral balance between the United States, on the one hand, and other developed countries, on the other. It is not just a matter of changing the balance of payments of the United States in its relationship with other countries of the developed world. The developing world could play a part.
Thus, if the developed countries other than the United States were to increase their imports from the developing world this would have a favourable effect on the United States balance of payments. It has been estimated that £100 million worth of additional imports into Western Europe and Japan from the developing countries would produce a £20 million increase in the United States exports to the developing countries. This, multiplied, could have great effect in helping to solve the present difficulties of the United States which the world must face up to.
I therefore hope that the Government will not take—there is no evidence that they are taking—a negative attitude towards the position of the developing countries in influencing a settlement of the present international trading situation.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not just a question as between one nation and another? It is the mix of the figure of £100 million additional imports as well as the global figure.

Mr. Dell: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The mix has to be considered. Nevertheless what the United States is insisting on is being enabled to deal to some extent—to what extent we do not know; it will obviously come out in the negotiations—with its current balance of payments deficit. I suggest that part of the answer is not just an arrangement within the developed world

but an arrangement which would bring in the developing countries and would enable them to increase their exports to the developed world, in that way assisting the United States balance of payments deficit. I hope that the influence of some hon. Members opposite will not lead the Government to forget the part that can be played by the developing world—the generalised preference scheme was one example of assisting the developing world—in the solution of international trading problems generally.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. John Hannam) on raising these wide issues in his excellent speech. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Norman-ton) whose expertise, added to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter, in addition to the knowledge of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), have been of great value to our deliberations.
I wish to turn to a matter which is mentioned in the second Motion on the Order Paper, namely the burning question of investing in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter referred to this point. I think that this is no new phenomenon but it has undoubtedly become more serious since 1965. Whichever party has been in office, there is no question but that the rate and the level of investment is now in a serious state.
According to the figures of the N.I.E.S.R., talking of industrial investment, and not of the total—that 10 per cent. of the G.D.P. or 5 per cent. in the case of industrial investment—there has been a grievous fall. In 1970–71 the fall in investment is about 8 per cent. according to the N.I.E.S.R., and in 1971–72 we shall suffer a fall of about 6·5 per cent. These are extremely serious figures and it matters not to me whether it be a Conservative or a Labour Government in office. These are figures which are, or should be, of great alarm to the country.
The situation is reflected in the unemployment figures. In spite of previous Treasury optimism, it is clear that 500,000 people have left their jobs in manufacturing industry this year. The situation is reflected in the longer term, in the number


of machine tools which have been purchased by this country, by West Germany and Japan in the last five years. We have purchased or installed about 200,000 machine tools, West Germany 480,000 and Japan well over 800,000. These are some of the indications of the gravity of the situation.
I am sure that everyone with constituents involved in heavy industry, as I have in Stafford, will be aware of the problems which affect heavy electricals, chemical engineering, machine tools and commercial vehicles, and factories are now working four, and even three days a week. These are the immediate impacts if the heavy industry programmes go into decline.
Far more seriously, as my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter said, within a decade unless these trends are altered, our physical finished exports will cease to be competitive in many parts of the world. Secondly, unless investment is now undertaken it is inevitable that our competitive position in the world can be maintained only by reducing the real purchasing power of the workers in this country, as happened between 1968 and 1970, by a series of devaluations.
May I put it in another way? Mr. Wynne Godley, in an article which has been referred to frequently said that a 9 per cent. growth rate in actual investment is needed between now and 1975 if we are to achieve anything like a 2½ per cent. level of unemployment. This is the weight of the problems which face the country. I think they are difficult to compute except in terms of the really great dangers which face us.
It is possible that the adverse trends will be reversed, but what is surely needed now is an acceleration even if the trends start moving in our direction. What is needed now is action by the Government to accelerate those trends so that we get the necessary investment to bring down unemployment and keep ourselves competitive. Even if the trends are in the direction of better profit, a higher rate of investment must be made possible.
I have my doubts that the trends are as good as all that. First, the resolution of the American imposed financial crisis is by no means certain before the next Presidential election. Secondly, far from

being good, investment prospects in Europe at the moment are very bad. Clearly from the company reports there is a general down-turn in industry there. Thirdly, as has been pointed out by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, even if there is a settlement of the currency impasse it will be around the United States demand for a 5 per cent. greater share in world trade, and this is bound to hurt others engaged in world trade. Therefore, the signs are not as good as all that.
Even if they were better than I suppose them to be, I believe that the time has come for the Government to start taking action. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury only a few days ago said:
It is indeed remarkable, given the weight of our overall fiscal policies and our public expenditure programmes, that business confidence and investment have not responded more rapidly.…" —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1971; Vol. 827, c. 1545–6.]
In the public sector the Government have advanced investment by £300 million net into this year. I believe that we have now got to start moving along those lines for private industry. We need a spark to turn up the economy and get the wheels turning faster.
Even if one looks at the consumer boom, the money is there. Real incomes have increased in the last year or so, but the boom is not booming because people are not spending. They are saving. It is an international phenomenon. Too much money is failing to fructify in the pockets of too many people. Even the phenomenon of a housing boom both here and in the United States is having only a marginal effect on the reinvigoration of the general economy. Fashions change quickly, but the cry issued by the Treasury should be, "Spend now and save later". That would be of some assistance in getting the wheels turning a bit faster.
Rightly or wrongly, I believe that the key is to try to get investment moving in the same way as it has moved in the public sector. It is not easy to inspire confidence. It is not easy to make clear to industry that profits are ahead. But I believe that they are. What we want now is not speeches at the Mansion House or off-the-record chats to leading industrialists; we need action by the


Government to bring investment in the private sector forward.
In my view, it would be perfectly possible and proper to set up and make use of an organisation based on the N.E.D.O., where we have an extremely competent director-general in the person of Sir Frank Figgures, bringing in the unions, the Government and management to consider the broad field of investment for the future. These will be difficult subjects, but, much in the same way as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) spoke of the need to consider employment in relation to the avalanche of change, I believe that there is much to be said for using this excellent machinery, giving it a bit more power, and turning our attention to what the French used to call indicative planning such as was very successful in France in the 1950s and 1960s. That is for the long term.
The immediate need is for pump priming and an endeavour to catch up the 18 months which we seem likely to waste. This is what the figures from the N.E.D.C. seem to indicate, that there will be virtually no heavy reinvestment or investment in this country not just in this year but until the end of 1972. If this comes about, it will mean that, when 1975 comes, we shall have a grossly overloaded and overheated economy, and that, I am sure, Treasury Ministers would regard as the one thing which they want to avoid. I hope, therefore, that they will bear with me if I now put forward some concepts, not totally Conservative and not always Socialist, for what I believe we should do. We must approach these questions in a completely undoctrinaire fashion to see what can be achieved in the way of pushing investment forward now into the economy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle referred to company taxation. In spite of what the right hon. Member the Member for Birkenhead said, I regard this as an important matter. Taken on an actuarial basis, that is, on the basis of actual replacement rather than historic cost, the figures for replacement of assets in this country reveal that many companies in this country are actuarially bankrupt. There must, therefore, be further assistance to the companies concerned. A cut in Bank Rate

is long overdue, and I hope that it will come.
Next, I beg Ministers to reconsider the whole question of investment allowances, free depreciation and investment grants. We can no longer afford to be doctrinaire about it. It is not a question of what we said in the manifesto or in our speeches. It is a question of what needs to be done now. I am all the more convinced today that the investment grant, especially if arranged in a more refined fashion, with precise emphasis on new, British, and preferably manufactured equipment, is an instrument which we should use once more.

Mr. John Hall: rose—

Mr. Fraser: I am sorry—I am rushing along, in view of the time. There should be a term put to the use of investment grants, there must be an element of stick and carrot, they cannot run for ever, but I am sure that for, say, a further three-year term they could be of real value.
Next, there must be tax adjustments to help scrapping and obsolescence, in the same way as there are in Japan and Germany. There must be assistance to firms in respect of the balancing charge to ensure that some of the balancing charge is rescinded or handed back. This also would be of value to investment.
I come now to the question of preference for British goods. Now that the Americans are imposing what amounts to a 15 per cent. charge on, for example, machine tools imported, there is no reason why, until that charge is remitted, there should not be an instruction by Her Majesty's Government to the Departments and the nationalised industries to buy British. That would be a perfectly legitimate and proper thing to do.
In general inducements, we have scope for action which could give a great spurt to investment. I refer here to the sector which I call service, catering and hotels. The time has come to make the second cut in the S.E.T. and get rid of it. I realise that there are problems here related to the V.A.T., but I regard our present problem as far more pressing than wasting our time on the V.A.T., which, for all we know, may never ultimately see the light of day.
I come next to the question of regional investment and the Common Market. Far from our projected entry into the Common Market leading to a rush of investment, precisely the opposite is now tending to happen, and it is happening because there are three special areas of uncertainty. The main uncertainty can be resolved only by the "Yea" or "Nay" of the House of Commons, of course, and I shall not speculate about what, or when, that answer may be. But there remain two more precise areas of uncertainty which can and should be resolved by the Government.
First, there is the area of international technical regulations governing vehicle weights, axle loads and so on. Decisions on these matters are urgently needed. Where a decision would be uncontroversial or anodyne, the Prime Minister should give an immediate instruction that Departments should issue specifications for industry to work on now. My current industrial experience leads me firmly to the opinion that these uncertainties are a considerable drag on capital outlay and spending.
Far more important is the wider question of investment decisions to be made by firms contemplating going into the Common Market at this moment. When a British firm, or, for that matter, an American firm, is considering new investment, where should it go—to Glasgow, to London, to the growing areas of unemployment in the Pas de Calais, in the Ruhr or in the brown coalfields of Germany?
This is becoming a question of immediate significance. Figures produced both here and by the United States Department of Commerce show that, over the last few years, there has been an advantage in investing in Europe rather than Britain, and it has been an advantage in investing in Europe rather than Britain, and it has been an advantage after tax—this has been shown by American firms operating in Europe and Britain—in the ratio of 15 to 10 in favour of Europe.
The Chancellor should now remove some of this uncertainty and indecision by declaring that, save in very special circumstances, capital movement into Europe will not be free until after Year 3 in the period of transition. I believe that this would concentrate a great many people's minds and resolve many company

quandaries in favour of investing in this country.
Now, the question of regional investment policy. The speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) last week has not received sufficient attention. I believe that the problem of regional investment is permanent in this country, and we must look at it far more vigorously and effectively, and think of it more profoundly, than we have hitherto.
The recent report, "The North-East in the 1960s", shows how much can be done for the nation with comparatively small investment, jobs being created for sums of about £1,750 of Government injection each. This is well worth looking at again until a much wider system is devised. This is where I go along with the right hon. Member for Cheetham in his thoughts about a local development bank or even something like regional taxation levels.
Until we have given much more profound thought to the matter, the regional employment premiums should not be extinguished in 1974. Taking the capital life of a machine tool, for example, as about seven years, I consider that there is a good argument for keeping these allowances going until 1978 or 1979.
Indeed, I would go further. We ought to look at the problem far more deeply than either this or the Labour Government did. To my mind, it is absurd, for example, to leave a city like Edinburgh as a non-development area in Scotland. There is a great deal to be said for the concept of a regional level of tax, especially company tax. We have it already to some extent in the various present allowances. A man making investments in certain areas has a much higher rate of write-off and a higher rate of depreciation than he would elsewhere. This should be further codified.
We need a new organisation to be built around N.E.D.O. to do the type of planning which was so successful in France in the 1950s and 1960s. Even more important is the need for action this day by the Government, faced with a heavy weight of unemployment and a level of investment that is simply not high enough.
Some of the things I have put forward may be controversial, but the subject is


no longer a matter of controversy. The fact is that something must be done.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason: I am sorry that because time is so short much of what I had to say will have to be curtailed to be fair to the Under-Secretary of State who is to wind up the debate.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. John Hannam), whose success in the ballot gave us this opportunity to debate the problems of British exporters. I agreed with a great deal of what was said by him and by his hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton), in an informative and enlightened speech. I am sorry that it went on a bit too long and therefore reduced the number of Members who could take part in the debate.
We have as a depressing backcloth to the debate the 10 per cent. import surcharge imposed by the United States and the danger that that protectionist measure may remain in force for too long. It is already having an effect on British exports. Our export figures are beginning to decline, noticeably so in exports to the United States.
I believe—and my right hon. Friend the Member, for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) seems to share this view—that at home the problems of British exporters are uncertainty and lack of confidence in the Government. That uncertainty is caused by a flurry of incoherent Government acts. Most of British industry is suffering from a lack of confidence in the Government's economic strategy and the Government's loss of control over inflation, prices and unemployment. Above all, firms suffer the constant torture of the Government's reactionary industrial policies.
In abolishing investment grants and bringing back investment allowances, the Government slowed down the return to industries in the development areas, and that is bound to affect their investment. The abolition of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, which was a sensible organisation, bringing about mergers of small companies involved in exporting, has harmed the regions and the small exporting firms. The phasing out of the regional employment premium has been a further worry for firms in the development areas, many of which were involved in exporting.
A series of such acts has harmed the confidence of many of the smaller exporting firms. They have witnessed inflation and unemployment getting out of control, followed by a series of panic measures, through mini-budgets. They have witnessed the high prices they brought, and in their turn a flood of wage demands. British industry is reeling from blow after blow caused by a series of incoherent Government acts. Firms have been unable to steady themselves long enough to take stock, to peer into the future and take sensible investment decisions. That is what the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) was trying to say—that the situation is causing a serious investment backlog.
When I was at the Board of Trade I was very keen to see the development of the Exports Services Division, to which I pay tribute. I still think that it likes to be called part of the Board of Trade, but we must acknowledge the new title of "Department of Trade and Industry". That Division is now more expert and professional than ever. Its well-established home base with its tentacles reaching out all over the world, using the commercial offices of the embassies and consulates, is internationally admired. There may be a difference between those that are highly competent and highly commercialised and those that are not, but the trend in recent years has been good, and the commercial offices are certainly being used.
The computerised export opportunities information system is well known by now. I gather that 5,000 exporters are already plugged into the computer network and are regularly receiving up-to-date information of export prospects. This in turn is helping them in a most cost-effective manner to spend only in areas where there is a distinct sales opportunity. The Export Sales Division should be encouraged. It is doing an excellent job for our exporters.
I only hope that the many thousands of exporters using those services have not felt inclined to withdraw because of the Government's deplorable dealings with the British National Export Council. The Government decided in May to abolish the B.N.E.C. and establish in its place a new British Export Board—first, I


gather. to save money, possibly on trade fairs, British Weeks, export missions and so on, and, second, to use more civil servants and be less dependent on British business men and industrialists. I concede that there was a case for looking at the B.N.E.C.'s worldwide operations and its finances, especially to see whether and to what extent major long-term trade drives in specially chosen areas of the world should replace the British Weeks, mini-weeks and the wholesale, widely-scattered export missions. That would have been sensible; it appeared to be a logical next step in our export effort, and it might well have resulted in some pruning of the B.N.E.C.
But instead the Government decided to abolish the B.N.E.C. and create a new export organisation. They told the B.N.E.C. only a few hours before the Ministerial statement was made. There was no consultation. Nearly everyone involved—all the international committees, 400 business men and industrialists, practically all volunteers, giving freely of their time and export expertise—read about it in the Press. It was a most deplorable method, a kick in the teeth to all B.N.E.C. staff. It was most discourteous to all concerned in national export endeavours.
It will be difficult, and it will take some time, for confidence to be restored between the Government and that large band of British business men. Difficulties are already being encountered. It took six months from the announcement of the B.E.B. to find a Chairman, Lord Thorneycroft. I hope that he will do a good job, but he seems to have too many directorships and chairmanships to give it the time it will deserve. Nearly eight months have elapsed, and as yet only four members of the Board have been named. I cannot believe that that is to be the full Board. There have been eight months of indecision. The heart has been torn out of the B.N.E.C. and no other form of organisation has yet been established. The Government did not even have the sense to plot a course for the gradual run-down of B.N.E.C. and the parallel growth of the B.E.B., possibly with the eventual marriage of the best of both organisations, keeping the continuing confidence of British exporters.
Therefore, above all we should receive from the Minister a statement about the B.E.B., its total membership, its future rôle and particularly the extent to which it will use the mass of experience available to it in the international committees of the old B.N.E.C. It is also about time the Government told the House exactly how they will deal with the officers and staff of the B.N.E.C.
I have not had time to develop a detailed argument about the future of British exports, but in one paragraph I should like to sum up. The British exporter has lost confidence in the Government. If our trade figures are to remain good—and they are already on the decline—the Government must initiate measures designed to encourage investment in export industries, and above all they must treat the exporter with the respect and encouragement he deserves.

6.39 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. John Hannam) on choosing the subject of exporters' problems for debate and on the way in which he made his opening speech, which set the tone for the debate. A number of very interesting and controversial points have been raised, and hon. Members opposite will not expect me to agree with everything they have said. I will say a word about the British Export Board if I have time.
Our export performance is very good at present. This year the United Kingdom has continued to show a substantial surplus on current account, with the surplus on visible trade averaging over £20 million a month over the year so far and invisible earnings estimated to have been running at over £50 million a month. In recent months visible trade has shown a surplus averaging over £40 million a month. These figures suggest that the overall surplus on current account for the year will probably exceed £800 million.
Taken at their face value, the November trade figures published today appear somewhat less favourable than in recent months, but this is due to distortions in the figures, and, more than ever, undue attention should not be paid to one month's set of figures. Despite the marked effect of the American dock strike, which


affected exports more than imports, visible trade still showed a small surplus of £5 million in November. In the three months, which is more important, from September to November, the surplus averaged £34 million per month.
While imports have increased only slowly this year, exports have been rising strongly. In the last five months, July to November, they averaged over £760 million a month compared with £710 million a month in the first half of the year, and, apart from the recent delays in shipments to the United States, the trend of exports to all main destinations has continued to rise in recent months. Without doubt, our exports will reach well over £8,500 million this year, and this compares with rather less than £8,000 million last year.
There are a number of reasons for this good performance on visible trade. Part of it is due to the restrained level of imports we have had this year, reflecting the level of demand in the economy. Demand and output are already rising, and this may be reflected in higher imports over the next few months.
But there is no denying that our export performance has improved enormously. The increase in value this year has been some 15 per cent. at an annual rate and in volume terms approaching 8 per cent. It is particularly significant that there has been a sharp rate of increase in the volume of exports, over the last five months. Over the previous two years from mid-1969 to mid-1971 there had been no sign of growth by volume and only a small rise, of 6 per cent., in value.
It would, however, be wrong to discuss exports and not to mention those who add greatly to the favourable United Kingdom balance of payments by providing overseas customers with a wide range of services. My hon. Friend touched on this. These invisible exporters as they are called—fortunately, this is a term of art; the exporters themselves are very visible indeed, not only in the City of London, but at any port or airport, in any insurance office, in any consultant's bureau, and throughout industry and commerce—are doing a job which matches up in every way with the splendid performance of those who send so many thousands of million pounds worth of visible goods out of this country every year.
For example, my hon. Friend is particularly interested in tourism, and I know that he will appreciate that that industry which contributes very much to our invisible earnings is now eligible for the Queen's Award for Exports, and last year three hotels received awards.
The Government are wholeheartedly behind the endeavours of the Committee on Invisible Exports, which aims to keep the importance of the overseas earnings which this business wields in the public eye. With the Committee's help, the Government are constantly striving to improve their information services which benefit exporters of invisibles. A guide to this Government help has only recently been published. British industry can rightly claim great credit for the improvement in our exports this year. With my hon. Friend, I should like to pay tribute to the valuable efforts of our exporters. But exporting always involves risks and my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have drawn attention to some of the current problems facing exporters.
It remains as true as ever that we cannot relax our efforts. United Kingdom export prices, for example, have continued to increase at a much faster rate than those of our main competitors. Comparing the second and third quarters of 1970 and 1971 our main competitors' export unit values rose on average by 4 per cent., while those for United Kingdom exports rose by 9 per cent. Moreover our share of world trade has shown a more or less continuous decline over a long period. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) made this point. In 1955, for example, our exports of manufactured goods amounted to about 20 per cent. of the world total; in 1970 they were just under 11 per cent. At the same time, world exports have been increasing both in value and in volume, so that we have had a smaller share of a bigger total.
This is a long-term trend, to which we all should pay heed. It is true that after falling from nearly 12 per cent. in 1969 to 10½ per cent. in 1970 the United Kingdom share in the volume of trade improved to 11 per cent. in the first half of this year with probably some further improvement in the third quarter. But this must be set against the long-term trend.
I do not think that we can expect to reverse this kind of trend overnight. It is a question, above all, of containing cost inflation and building up our export strengths over a period, concentrating on the things which we can do well, establishing our priorities and pushing them hard. In this matter the Government are pursuing a policy of selectivity for their own export promotion work.
We must all recognise here that the primary task of exporting is for industry. Exporters have to go out and secure the orders overseas. They have to seek their profits in overseas markets. The Government's rôle is one of generalised assistance. It would be wrong to think that any efforts of the Government could be a substitute for the efforts of industry in any way. We seek to interfere less in business, and to give industry more freedom. This is a central part of the Government's industrial and economic policy.
But in the world today, and particularly in the field of international trade, all nations are interdependent. Future prospects for our exports depend particularly on the growth in world demand for manufactured goods. After rising by 16 per cent. in 1968 and 13 per cent. in 1969, the volume growth of world trade in manufactured goods slowed down to about 9 per cent. in 1970. The prospects for world trade in the next year or two should show some improvement over this kind of figure, if there is some recovery in the growth of the industrialised countries. But the future internationally is at present beset with uncertainties, as has been said, and exporters' attitudes are bound to be influenced by this.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter has referred to the very important matter of the American measures of 15th August and, in his Motion to the imposition of the surcharge. On 22nd October, Denmark also introduced a temporary 10 per cent. surcharge on a wide range of imports. We are very concerned about the potential damage to our exporters should the United States import surcharge and associated discriminatory tax credit remain in effect for long. We have recognised, too, that in the short term the surcharge could seriously affect some exporters heavily reliant upon the United States market.
We are therefore continuing to strive for the earliest possible removal of the surcharge, and have left the United States Government in no doubt about our opposition to it, and to the job development tax credit and the Domestic International Sales Corporation concept which provides a tax deferral on export sales. On the broader front, we have been conscious of the need to avoid escalation of the new situation caused by the United States action into a trade war which would be in the interests of no one.
Therefore, on the question of realignment of currencies, I can tell my hon. Friend that there was progress in the Group of Ten meeting on 1st December towards the international agreement which the United States has indicated would be necessary before the removal of the surcharge and the discriminatory tax credit. Discussions will continue at the next Group of Ten meeting on 17th and 18th December, and of course we all hope that they will be successful.
Looking to the future, our entry to the European Communities will present our exporters with many new opportunities and also, of course, inevitably, new challenges. The opportunities are there for those who earn foreign exchange through the provision of services just as much as for those who send goods abroad. Membership of the E.E.C. will also provide us with a much stronger position in international negotiations on matters affecting trade and commercial policy. Already we have been very closely associated with the Six in efforts to find solutions to the international monetary crises. These are developments which, I believe, will help and encourage our exporters.
Much will depend upon how effectively individual managements prepare themselves for entry and on the initiative which they display in seizing the new opportunities and in meeting the new challenges. Here I again stress the readiness of my Department to help firms in their preparation for entry with information and advice. Only last week, we published a booklet containing a whole series of articles on Britain and the E.E.C.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter referred in this context to a possible


rôle for the Commonwealth Development Finance Company. He is, of course, engaged in correspondence with my colleagues at the Treasury about the idea of adopting this agency for helping British firms to invest in Europe, but I make it clear—as he himself did—that the company, in which the Bank of England has had an interest since its inception, as have foreign banks and other institutions, is a private sector company and that its sphere of operations is a matter for its management and shareholders to decide. But I am sure that my right hon. Friends will take note of what my hon. Friend has said.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) made an extremely interesting and provocative speech, which made me regret that he did not have his own debate, because it would have been extremely interesting. Many of the points he raised are primarily matters for the Treasury, but let us now look at the latest and still provisional figures for private investment, published today.
Industry's capital expenditure at constant prices and seasonally adjusted was little changed between the second and third quarters of 1971. Between the first three quarters of 1970 and the corresponding period of 1971, there was a fall of no more than 1½ per cent. in total investment. I believe that these figures are rather better than, and do not entirely justify, some of the gloomy forecasts, including those by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. A lot more could be said on this but I believe that the outlook for growing demand, not only over next year but over several years, at a sustained rate, and the prospects of entering the E.E.C.—which, incidentally the National Institute did not take into consideration, I believe—combine to produce a favourable atmosphere for investment.
Of course plans cannot be changed overnight and of course business wants to see more evidence of real expansion ahead, but with prospects of expansion ahead more industrial capacity will be needed if we are to achieve and secure full employment and if we are to maintain and, indeed, strengthen our competitive position.
The Government have recognised the dangers, for employment and for exports,

in any decline in the volume of investment. Having recognised these dangers, the Government have taken the measures of reflation to which I have referred, which should limit the decline and encourage an early upturn. The latest figures suggest that the decline in investment up to the third quarter of this year has been small. We accept that there is a continuing need for a reexamination of investment prospects. This will be done, in the normal way, on the basis of the latest information. This regular reassessment will form an important part of the Chancellor's budget judgment.
On the question of investment incentives, I should stress that the Government have given the biggest stimulus to demand for years. We have reduced taxation by £1,100 million this year and by £1,400 million in a full year, and we have abolished hire-purchase terms control. This, more than anything else, can create, I believe, a favourable environment for higher rates of industrial activity and investment.
I turn now to the question of export credits. About 90 per cent. of all our exports are sold for cash or for credit of 180 days or less. This short-term credit is provided at market rates and is readily available. It is to our national advantage to be paid quickly for exports and it is, therefore, helpful that so large a volume of trade is on cash or short credit terms.
But some exports, and particularly capital goods, require longer credit and there are two schemes. The first, undertaken by the Export Credits Guarantee Department, is for credit of less than two years where the rate of interest is a variable one of Bank Rate plus ½ per cent. The second scheme, which has received more publicity, is for credits for periods of two years or over at a fixed rate of interest.
It is interesting to note that about 60 per cent. of this form of cover is for exports to developing countries. It does not wholly justify the suggestion that the developing countries are neglected when the majority of long-term credit goes to them. The House will be familiar with the changes in the rate from 5½ per cent. to 7 per cent. in October last year and to 6½ per cent. from this November. This approximates to about the middle of the international spread of rates,


which means that sometimes competitors overseas for particular orders can quote lower rates of interest than our exporters, but in other cases our rates are lower than theirs. We hear quite a lot about cases where our exporters lose business on credit terms—I cannot go into detail on the case mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter—but we do not hear so much about the very large number of cases which are successfully concluded.
Credit is only one factor in export competition. Others, such as price, delivery and technical performance may be even more important. We think that a middle rate of credit provides most of our exporters with a reasonable basis from which to compete. Everything will be done to speed the service which the E.C.G.D. grants. I believe that it renders a service which compares very favourably with most other countries.
On the question of investment overseas and in developing countries, I draw attention to the White Paper, "British Private Investment in Developing Countries". The E.C.G.D. will be undertaking an insurance scheme for assisting investment in the developing countries and legislation will be brought before Parliament fairly soon.
The British Export Board will be responsible from the beginning of January next for the direction of export promotion. Lord Thorneycroft has accepted office as chairman, and this has been welcomed by industry. The decision to establish the Board followed a review of the existing services from which it was clear that any new organisation had to be cost effective and closely integrated and that it was necessary that business men experienced in exporting should be actively and closely involved in its work. I believe that the new organisation will avoid a great degree of duplication. It

will command the support of industry as a whole. Indeed, the London Chamber of Commerce has expressed itself very strongly in favour of the Board and of the appointment of Lord Thorneycroft. I am sure that the whole House will wish the Board success.
We have had a very interesting debate. I am sorry that it has been so short, because my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter has raised many matters, as have other hon. Members, to which I have not had time to reply. However, I hope that I have been able to reassure my hon. Friend about the great importance that we attach to investment as a means of stimulating economic growth and exports. There are great opportunities for the future—

It being Seven o'clock, the Proceedings on the Motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 6 (Precedence of Government Business).

Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison (Eye): On a point of order. I ask for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On a previous occasion, when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office, I was in the same position as my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. John Hannam) in that a Motion stood in my name upon the Order Paper and the then Government had a great many statements to make. Today, for that reason an hour and a half has been lost from private Members' time. Surely there should be some way in which the time of back bench hon. Members can be protected. If Ministers have statements that they wish to make, extra time should be provided at the end of the debate on a Motion which follows them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have every sympathy with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I am afraid that there is nothing that I can do. His point must be raised through the usual channels.

Orders of the Day — EMPLOYMENT MEDICAL ADVISORY SERVICE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

7.1 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is comparatively rare for a Minister to find himself in the position in which I am today in introducing, on behalf of the Government, a Measure which was previously put forward by the former Administration and which I welcomed from the dispatch box opposite on behalf of the then Opposition. On that occasion, the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) wound up the debate. He is aware of this legislation since he worked very hard at it during his time in Government.
The Bill is to establish an Employment Medical Advisory Service. It is a short Bill, but it takes an important step forward in occupational medicine, and I hope it will be generally welcomed.
Perhaps I might take a few moments to remind the House of the origins and genesis of the Bill. As long ago as 1844, the Factories Act provided for the appointment of "certifying surgeons" to certify the age of children employed in cotton mills. From this modest beginning evolved the system whereby today young persons who enter factory employment have to be medically examined within 14 days of entering that employment and these examinations have to be repeated at annual intervals, or on their change of factory employment until they reach the age of 18.
These medical examinations are now carried out by some 1,500 appointed factory doctors, the modern name for certifying surgeon, who are appointed to carry out these examinations by the Chief Inspector of Factories. Appointed factory doctors are normally general practitioners. They also carry out certain other duties under the Factories Act, the most important of which is the statutory medical examinations required under regulations for persons employed in certain hazardous trades.
There is no doubt that, during the long years of its existence, the appointed factory doctor service has contributed a great deal to the health of our young people. But conditions are now very different from those which obtained when the service first started in 1844.
We have the School Health Service, dating from 1906, a most important development in the medical supervision of children, while the introduction of the National Health Service in 1948 made a comprehensive health service available to every citizen. These two services together now keep a careful check on the health of young persons, and the routine examinations by factory doctors of all young people entering factory employment have ceased to be so important.
It was therefore felt right that the value of the appointed factory doctor service should be reassessed and accordingly, in 1964, a sub-committee of the Industrial Health Advisory Committee, was set up to review the service and to make recommendations. The report of the sub-committee, published in 1966, recommended far-reaching changes. It considered that the requirement for the routine medical examination of all young persons entering factory employment should be abolished and that the medical time thus saved should be used to establish a more integrated and expert medical service, with wider duties in occupational medicine.
The recommendations of this report were accepted by the Government of the day, and this Bill implements and develops these recommendations, so that, with the establishment of the Employment Medical Advisory Service, we are not merely modernising the appointed factory doctor service but setting up for the first time a focus for the development of occupational medicine in this country.
The Bill includes a number of proposals which were not in the 1966 report, but these later ideas which extend the recommendations of the report have been worked out with the help of the same sub-committee of the Industrial Health Advisory Committee. I should like to place on record my thanks for the valuable assistance the sub-committee has given my Department.
The nucleus of the Employment Medical Advisory Service will be the


recently formed Medical Services Division of my Department which has taken over the duties of the former medical inspectors of factories, and also co-ordinates on a professional level the work of doctors in Government training centres and industrial rehabilitation units, together with that of the Department's regional medical consultants.
So far as its existing staff resources permit, the Medical Services Division advises the other branches of my Department on any medical problem arising from employment, including fitness for work, placement in work, industrial rehabilitation and mental health. When the Employment Medical Advisory Service is established, there will be added to these duties the medical supervision of young persons in employment and the medical examination of workers in hazardous trades. This will mean bringing together for the first time, in one nationwide organisation, the various categories of doctors employed in industrial medicine.
Perhaps at this stage I should make clear that the new service is not and is not intended to be a comprehensive industrial health service, if by that phrase we mean a service which envisages more doctors in more factories. However, we claim that it represents a new initiative in occupational medicine. We have adopted a selective approach to the problem of man's response to the requirements of his work, and we shall seek to identify and then overcome the causes of disease, fatigue and stress arising from work. In fact, we are instituting a modern medical detective service which can be of the utmost value.
In doing this, the service will work in the closest collaboration with the Factory Inspectorate, and here perhaps I might mention the Industrial Hygiene Unit which is concerned with the detection and measurement of hazards found in the working environment and ways of overcoming them. The E.M.A.S. will also work closely with the industrial rehabilitation services and the psychological services of the Department. It will not, however, provide treatment, which is a matter for the National Health Service.
We intend that the Employment Medical Advisory Service should tap the

expertise of many disciplines. To this end, we propose to elaborate the present system of professional advisory panels so that the Chief Employment Medical Adviser can draw on the advice of many experts. We regard this as very important. The function of the panels will be both to advise on the solution of medical problems in industry, and to use medical and other knowledge to predict problems in industry which may arise in the future.
While the new service will spend much of its time on the day-to-day medical problems of industry, it will also undertake surveys and epidemiological studies in relation to both long and short-term hazards. Many of the new hazards to health are not immediately evident, so formalised studies of populations must supplement the clinical examination of employed persons. There will be close co-operation in such work with the other medical and related services, especially with the Medical Research Council. As will be apparent to the House, such surveys and studies can only be done by a nationwide service.
As one of the most important aspects of the service is the change in the arrangements for young persons, perhaps I might say a few words on this.
For some years now it has been the practice of the School Health Service to notify the Youth Employment Service by means of a standard form of those school leavers who are not unconditionally fit for employment, indicating in general terms working conditions which are best avoided; for example, work in dusty places. When the E.M.A.S. is established, this standard form will be sent to the employment medical adviser as well, so that for the first time there will be a direct link between the school medical officer, the employment medical adviser and the careers officer of the Youth Employment Service.
Hitherto there has been no connection between the information passed from the School Health Service to the Youth Employment Service and the activities of the appointed factory doctors in regard to young persons. This new arrangement will make it possible for there to be continued co-operation and consultation between the careers officer and the employment medical adviser during the whole process of advising these pupils and placing them in employment. My


Department and the education department are satisfied that the School Health Service will be able to undertake this extra work and are considering the best way of bringing home to school doctors the new importance which their medical examinations and interviews will assume.
I see the hon. Member for Doncaster smiling. I remember that I raised a point on this very aspect when I was in Opposition. I have taken particular trouble in checking with officials of my Department and I have the assurance that the School Health Service is well aware of its duties in this respect. As time goes on everything will be done to improve the service and to make it as efficient as possible.
Before I comment on the individual Clauses of the Bill, there are a few general points which I should like to make on matters which I know are of interest to hon. Members. Firstly, it might be asked whether, while the Committee on Safety and Health under the chairmanship of Lord Robens is sitting, it is right to legislate. We discussed with Lord Robens our proposals to reintroduce this Bill. He has authorised me to say that his Committee sees this reform of the appointed factory doctor service as a constructive measure which would prejudice neither his Committee's recommendations on safety and health, nor possible further development of occupational medicine within the context of the general health services. This in some respects answers an interesting article which appeared in the Lancet last weekend which in part praises the introduction of the Bill but queries whether it is wise to legislate in advance of the Robens Report. Having had this from Lord Robens we can go ahead with a clear conscience.
This leads me to the relationship of the Employment Medical Advisory Service to the National Health Service. It has been suggested either that the establishment of the E.M.A.S. should be deferred until the National Health Service reorganisation is complete, or that the E.M.A.S. should be part of the National Health Service, and therefore included in its reorganisation. This is a matter which has been discussed most fully between the Ministers concerned.
The Government are agreed that responsibility for occupational medicine and in particular for the Employment

Medical Advisory Service must, for the present—I emphasise for the present—remain with the Department of Employment as the Department responsible for working conditions in factories, shops and offices and the Department most closely concerned with conditions of employment generally.
But it is equally clear that the subject of occupational medicine must not be dealt with in isolation from other aspects of the health service. We are determined therefore that there should be a very close relationship between the Employment Medical Advisory Service and the National Health Service, and we are exploring with the health departments ways of achieving this.
One particular area in which co-operation has been agreed concerns the laboratory, X-ray and other investigatory facilities which will be an integral part of the work of the service. It is proposed that the National Health Service laboratories should be used for most Employment Medical Advisory Service work and discussions with the health departments are proceeding on the best way of arranging this. This will be an important point of contact between the two services. Another useful point of contact will lie in the employment of part-time employment medical advisers. Many of these will no doubt already be working for the National Health Service whether as general practitioners or in hospitals.
When the National Health Service is reorganised, the proper home for the Employment Medical Advisory Service will undoubtedly have to be looked at again by the Departments concerned, and I can assure the House that there is nothing in the E.M.A.S. proposals as at present drafted which prejudices the issue of what arrangements might be most appropriate in the long term for occupational medicine. I hope that some medical authorities who have raised doubts about this will read these words in HANSARD and accept this assurance as it is a sincere one from my Department.
We feel, however, that it would be folly to defer this long overdue reform of the appointed factory doctor service simply because the structure of the National Health Service itself is under review. We see no reason why the organisation and


duties of the E.M.A.S. should not be planned in such a way that if a major change in departmental responsibility is deemed necessary, there will be a well-organised structure for occupational medicine to be transferred.

Dr. David Owen: Would the hon. Gentleman confirm that he is not excluding the possibility, when the legislation on reorganisation of the Health Service comes before the House next Session, that it may incorporate such changes to allow occupational health centres under the National Health Service?

Mr. Smith: That is possible. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not a matter for me because the reorganisation of the Health Service is not for my Department to carry through the House. There is no doubt that there will be continuing consultations between Government Departments who are affected. At present we believe this is the right course. In future, circumstances may change and in that case undoubtedly the Government will introduce whatever legislation is thought appropriate.
Apart from the relationship of the E.M.A.S. with the National Health Service, there is the question of its relationship with works medical officers—doctors who are employed by many firms and large organisations to supervise the health of their employees. It is estimated that about one-third of all employees in factories are covered by full or part-time works medical officers. There are thought to be some 400 full-time works medical officers, and probably considerably more part-timers. In some areas there are group industrial health services.
These are services which provide a works medical officer for firms in the area on payment of an annual fee based on the number of employees in the firm. In contrast to individual works medical services, they are run by a governing body composed of employers, trade unions and medical representatives. The areas covered by such services are Rochdale, Dundee, Slough. Harlow, Central Middlesex, West Midlands and Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
We recognise that works medical officers possess a great deal of knowledge and expertise in occupational medicine

and it is our intention that the Employment Medical Advisory Service shall work closely with them. In so far as such services are already doing the sort of things which the E.M.A.S. will be doing, the Department is wholeheartedly in favour of them and there is certainly no intention of allowing the new service to duplicate their activities.
So far as the statutory duties of the E.M.A.S. are concerned, we propose to continue the long-standing practice whereby works medical officers are authorised to undertake the statutory medical examination of employees in their factories, although in future authorisation will be by the Chief Employment Medical Adviser instead of the Chief Inspector of Factories.
The last general point on which I wish to comment relates to the staffing of the service. As Members will have seen from the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum, we propose that the nucleus of the new service shall be the 50 doctors already employed by my Department, in particular the former medical inspectors of factories now medical advisers, and we shall need about the equivalent of 50 more full-time doctors—35 more in the first year, building up to 50 when the service is at full strength, together with supporting staff.

Mr. Adam Butler: I am not sure whether the phrase "equivalent full-time" doctors implies a large number of part-time doctors or whether there is some other significance behind it.

Mr. Smith: The emphasis will be on a smaller number of full-time doctors. The vast majority of appointed factory doctors are part time. Many of them are also in general practice. The idea is to reduce the numbers but to make them more expert in the particular line in which they will be engaged. The majority of them will be full time.
Although this is a small increase in the number of doctors employed by my Department, it should be seen in the light of the saving in national medical manpower which will result from the abolition of the universal young persons' examinations, which is estimated to take up the equivalent time of 70 to 80 full-time doctors. This shows that valuable medical practitioners will be released for other medical work.
The doctors who will be employed by my Department will have to have the usual secretarial and clerical staff and we are also proposing to bring into the service 12 nurses. The idea of having nurses in the service is a new one, but, when we looked at the duties which the E.M.A.S. would carry out, we felt there would be advantage in this and it will, of course, be more economical of the doctor's time.
We intend to discuss the duties of the nurses with the Royal College of Nursing, but the sort of things we have in mind are that nurses should, for example, undertake and assist in the medical examination of young persons and the periodic examination of workers exposed to toxic hazards. They would also help in the surveys of occupational groups. I am confident that by employing nurses in this way we can do a great deal both to run the service more economically and efficiently.
I should like to comment briefly on the Clauses of the Bill.
Clause 1 deals with the establishment and functions of the Employment Medical Advisory Service and provides for the appointment of employment medical advisers and sets out their powers. These are identical with some of the powers given to H.M. Inspectors of Factories by the Factories Act, 1961—for example, the right of entry to factory premises—and are necessary for the proper functioning of the Service. The powers are given in detail in Part I of Schedule 1, and Part II of that Schedule lists the places and processes which are deemed to be factories under the 1961 Act and to which the powers of advisers extend in the same way as those of factory inspectors. Clause 1(6) deals with the transmission of information from the School Health Service to the Employment Medical Adviser. This is the statutory backing to the arrangements which I have already mentioned whereby the E.M.A. may be fully briefed on the medical history of those school leavers who require continued medical supervision.
Clause 2 abolishes the position and functions of the Appointed Factory Doctors.
Clause 3 is directed to the employer and allows a medical adviser, where he

is of the opinion that any employed person's health is or may be affected by his work, to serve a notice upon a factory occupier requiring him to permit the employment medical adviser to carry out medical examinations of any of his employees. The occupier will be obliged to comply with such a notice. These powers are intended only as a last resort in cases in which a recalcitrant employer refuses to let his workers be medically examined. It is most unlikely that there will be many of these, and we do not expect the powers under this Clause to be used frequently if at all. The fallback power is necessary. However, I should add that the Clause does not compel a worker to submit himself for medical examination.
Clause 4 alters the power of suspension in Section 75 of the Factories Act which is concerned with the employment of women and young persons in processes involving the use of lead compounds. At present the appointed factory doctor has power to suspend workers where he thinks continued employment in such a process may endanger their health. Under the Bill, however, the procedure will change and the employment medical adviser will advise the occupier of a factory in writing that he is of the opinion that the continued employment of a worker in a particular process in the factory would involve special danger to his health. The employer will then be guilty of an offence under the Factories Act if he continues to employ that person.
Clause 5 is an important new provision concerned with young persons. As I have explained, we are abolishing the routine medical examination of young persons and substituting instead a more selective system based on the records of the School Health Service. When a young person takes up factory employment the occupier must give notice to the local careers office of the Youth Employment Service of that fact within seven days of the engagement. This is a further check so far as factory employment is concerned to ensure that young persons identified by the School Health Service as not being unconditionally fit for employment are given proper advice about suitable employment. It does not impose an extra burden on the occupier, for at present the factory doctor has to be told of a young person's engagement.


In future the notification will go to the careers officer.
Clause 6 provides for the occupier to continue to pay the fees for periodic medical examinations of persons employed in hazardous trades required under the Factories Act. The fees paid for examinations by employment medical advisers are to be paid to the Exchequer and for those by other medical practitioners direct to those practitioners by the occupier.
Clause 7(1) provides that Clauses 3 and 5 shall also apply to other places which are deemed to be factories under the Factories Act, namely, to docks, wharves, quays and warehouses; the processes of loading, unloading or coaling of ships in any dock, harbour or canal—but not including any work by the members of the crew of a ship; any work of specified kinds carried out on ships in a harbour or wet dock; and building operations and works of engineering construction.
That, then, is a summary of the provisions of this modest but not unimportant Bill which I commend to the House. It is an earnest of the Government's intention to do all they can to better the conditions of people at work and as such I believe it is worthy of the support of the House. I hope it will have a fair passage to the Statute Book.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Harold Walker: I had the feeling during the speech of the Under-Secretary of State that we were participating in a reunion. After looking round the House at the Members present that feeling is strengthened. There was very little in the hon. Gentleman's speech from which I would dissent. It was not what he said but what he failed to say which will perhaps occupy the major part of my remarks.
The Under-Secretary said, rightly, that the Bill was substantially Part I of the Employed Persons (Health and Safety) Bill proposed by the Labour Government. As the hon. Gentleman reminded us, I was the Minister responsible for the original Bill. Therefore, the House will expect me to welcome its belated resurrection, which of course I do. However, for several reasons, I cannot pretend to have the enthusiasm for the present Bill which I had for the original Bill.
The Under-Secretary of State said that the Bill was a long overdue reform. Yet it has taken almost two years to bring it before the House. I must first of all comment on what seems to me this extraordinary and unjustified delay, because, after all, the Government inherited a ready-made Bill, one which had been through all the time-consuming preliminaries of consultation, one which the House had approved in principle. In spite of this being a long overdue reform it has taken two years to put before the House again—or the best part of two years.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Eighteen months.

Mr. Walker: Twenty months. Of course, we all know that the Department has been rather overworked and obsessed with other issues. This Bill has been roughly elbowed aside by the determination of the Government to introduce the Measure to curb the unions. The House and the country must make their own judgment on the Government's priorities.
The next thing which cools my welcome for the Bill is the absence from it of anything which deals directly and specifically with industrial safety. In his review of the genesis of this Measure the Under-Secretary failed entirely—I do not know whether it was an oversight or a deliberate omission—to point out that the original Measure was a balanced one which dealt not only with industrial health but with industrial safety as well.
The present Government have deliberately omitted from this Bill what was by far the most important and radical part of the previous Measure, the provision for worker representatives and safety committees. The T.U.C. and the British Safety Council and other bodies and individuals concerned with industrial safety have long held the view that those were useful and constructive steps which could be taken in the short term to diminish the daily toll of life and limb in British industry, but, of course, hon. Members opposite, with a few honourable exceptions, have never concealed their distaste for giving the workers some voice and influence in this crucial aspect of their working lives.
When we last debated industrial safety the Government sought to evade facing this issue by taking refuge behind the Robens Committee. When my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West


(Mr. Buchan) presented his Employed Persons (Safety) Bill on 12th February last we were told that we had to await the comprehensive legislation which was likely to flow from the report of the Committee, to which the Under-Secretary referred, and sitting under the chairmanship of Lord Robens. I should have thought, notwithstanding, that the logic of that argument is that it applies equally to the concept of the E.M.A.S.
I am glad that the Government's prejudice against worker safety representatives has not deterred them from bringing this Bill forward today, but I must say that this dichotomy of approach by the Government is illogical and inconsistent, and exposes the former argument of "waiting for Robens" as a shabby sham.
I see from the Order Book of the House that on 4th February next we shall again debate the Employed Persons (Safety) Bill. I want to tell the hon. Gentleman that if we get the same negative reaction from the Government then as we got last time we shall seek to introduce it again and again and again till we get it on to the Statute Book. I await with interest that occasion because I think that by bringing forward this Bill today the Government have in advance invalidated their earlier argument. They will have either to accept that Bill which was presented on 12th February or expose the reality of their true position, and that is that to them workers' safety is subordinated to political ideology and doctrine.
However, it is not only the omission of the safety section of the original Bill that causes me concern. This Bill is totally silent on industrial safety. I should have thought that the Government might have shown some response to the constructive and well-informed speeches in the debate we had earlier this year and to which I have already made reference, but there is no sign here that they were even listening to that debate. Everything has to wait on Robens in the field of industrial safety. I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman might in his speech have given some indication of when he expects the report from the Robens Committee. We have not heard that. I hope he will refer to that.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Certainly one will endeavour later to answer the points made by the hon. Gentleman, but perhaps I can help him now on this point. The latest information I have is, in the early summer of next year.

Mr. Walker: That is welcome news, but I hope it will not be followed, when we receive it, by yet another round of consultations, by yet another consultative document, and by a yet further series of stratagems to serve to put off action.
In the meantime there are some obvious reforms which have widespread support and which could have been embodied in the Bill, and not the least of those is to increase the absurdly low level of the maximum penalty provided in the Factories Act—£300 maximum fine for criminal negligence leading to loss of life. That makes a ridiculous contrast with the kind of penalties currently demanded and applied in other areas of the law. I thought we might have heard something today of the Government's reaction to last week's High Court judgment on industrial deafness. It may be too early, but one would expect far-reaching consequences in the light of that judgment. I thought tonight we might have had a very clear statement of what the Government's attitude would be to industrial deafness, because Mr. Justice Ashworth's ruling in the case of Berry v. Stone Manganese and Marine Ltd., that the employer was legally responsible for the plaintiff's deafness and that the deafness was incurred in the course of and arising out of the man's employment, is a significant precedent which the Government cannot ignore. The hon. Gentleman knows that the T.U.C. and others have pressed for many years for industrial deafness to be recognised and compensated under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act. I think that that High Court decision last week is a very powerful reinforcement of their case and one which, as I have said, calls for a statement eventually on the attitude of the Government.
I turn to the Bill itself and refer to yet another reason for the tepid nature of my welcome for it. I suggested to the House that we had been presented with an emasculated version of the Bill's progenitor, but even what we have is


mutilated. I see from the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum that the proposed service will be run on about £850,000 per annum. The original Bill presented in March, 1970, provided for an expenditure not of £850,000 but around about £1 million per annum.
In view of the rip-roaring inflation which the country has endured since March, 1970, I calculate that to keep the value of that £1 million constant the Government ought to have been asking the House to approve not £1 million but £1·2 million—to maintain the value of £1 million which we provided for in 1970. That £1·2 million would be the sum required to maintain the constant value of that £1 million. We see in this Bill that far from there being an increased capital sum allocated it has been chopped to £850,000, which means in real terms a little over two-thirds of the original. Does this mean that we are to have a service which is to be two-thirds of that we originally conceived? I hope that the hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friend in reply to the debate will tell us, where have the cuts occurred? What has been chopped?
The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum itself provides at least part of the answer. I should have thought that when he was talking about the provision for the numbers of medically qualified staff the hon. Gentleman would have acknowledged the contrast between what the present Bill provides and what its predecessor provided. Under this Bill we see provision for 50 full-time and the part-time equivalent of a further 50 additional doctors—a total of 100 doctors or their equivalent. In the original Bill that number was to have been 50 plus 60; that is, 110 full-time doctors or their equivalent. In other words, this would mean a cut of almost 10 per cent. in the number of professional medically qualified staff. It is true that there will be an increase in the supporting staff provided under the Bill, and we were told that this will happen because the service will now make some provision for the employment of nursing staff. Is the hon. Gentleman now substituting nurses for doctors? This was the implication of what he said.

Mr. Dudley Smith: indicated dissent.

Mr. Walker: The fact that the hon. Gentleman shakes his head can only be taken as saying that he is acquiescing in cutting the number of professionally qualified staff—that is to say, the number of doctors involved. This is the reverse of the course urged upon us by the then Conservative Opposition when the Bill was last before the House.
The hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) said in Standing Committee on the previous Bill that he would like to have seen an increase in the medically qualified staff at the expense of the number of supporting staff.

Mr. Philip Holland: I hope that if I have an opportunity to speak a little later in the debate I shall again have the opportunity to question whether the number of staff will be enough. The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) should wait a little longer to hear my contribution.

Mr. Walker: I look forward to hearing what the hon. Gentleman has to say. I am sure it will be an interesting and intelligent contribution, and I am glad to have his support. I should not want my earlier remarks to be taken as implying that the hon. Gentleman will in any way perform a volte face. I very much doubt that the hon. Gentleman will do such a thing.
I hope that in his reply the Minister will explain where the cuts have occurred and will say why these changes have been necessary. May we know why the financial allocation has been reduced and what effect this will have on the size and growth of the service when it starts to operate? It may be a little premature to ask at this stage who will head the new service, but it would be of interest if we could be given that information.

Mr. Dudley Smith: On a point of clarification, does the hon. Gentleman mean the name of the individual or the title of the office?

Mr. Walker: It would be helpful if we could be given both, but it would be quite acceptable if the hon. Gentleman could give only the title.
A number of other minor changes have taken place in the provisions of this Bill as compared with those of its predecessor. It would probably be more


appropriate to probe this matter in Committee rather than to take up the time of the House tonight. However, I should like to refer to one substantial change which has occurred in the new Schedule and its relationship with Clause 1(5).
Having looked carefully at the new Bill, I recall the earlier debates and realise that the hon. Gentleman has responded to some of the arguments which were then deployed. Clause 1(5) of the original Bill was severely criticised because of its obscure and labyrinthine language and was described as gibberish or gobbledegook. It was then said that rather than having cross-references to the various powers, the new Employment Medical Advisory Service should be defined and delineated in a Schedule. This probably explains why the hon. Gentleman has responded with the new Schedule. However, it appears that the hon. Gentleman has now given us the worst of both worlds. We still have the complex cross-referencing, which is the bane of most legislation, but the Government have also added a third source of reference, namely, the Schedule.
Instead of merely having to refer to the Factories Acts, we now have to refer also to the new Schedule. In addition, the hon. Gentleman has put the provisions of the Bill in the vulnerable position that they may later be subjected to amendment, which would not necessarily be amendment to the original Factories Acts, and thus the consistency which is so desirable would be lost. No doubt again this is a matter which we can discuss in Committee.
What is clear is that the Government have diluted into a timid little Measure what was a radical and constructive attempt to improve industrial health and diminish the toll of life and limb in industry. However, it is a step in the right direction. The Employment Medical Advisory Service has a potential rôle well beyond that provided for at its inception, and well beyond that of the appointed factory doctor system which had reached its limits in terms of the rôle it could play in industrial health. This is not in any way intended to imply criticism of those doctors who are carrying out this work and who have been doing so for a considerable time. They have made a great contribution towards raising the standards of health in industry,

and I have paid tribute to their work on other occasions.
With the creation of the new service we are entering a new phase in our approach to the health and well being of workers in industry. I hope that the E.M.A.S. will have an increasingly important and expanding rôle to play—and by expansion I do not mean empire-building, but rather that they will be given the facilities and resources to research into and advise upon aspects of industrial health which at present receive so little attention.
I think it was the Parliamentary Secretary who urged in our 1970 debate that the new service should be allowed to take into its scope environmental, psychological and behavioural studies; and I am sure he was right. I say this without disrespect to the good work already being done by such bodies as the Society for Occupational Medicine, and National Institute of Industrial Psychology, and others.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the growing interest in, and pressure for, the introduction of an occupational health service. I do not wish tonight to discuss what we mean by such a scheme, but I was struck by his statement that responsibility for occupational health will remain with the Department of Employment. This must necessarily and inevitably imply a limited scope for occupational health provision. If there is to be a response to this growing demand, it surely must be accommodated within the framework, structure and resources of the National Health Service. To say that occupational health will remain with the Department of Employment seems to rule out what hon. Members on this side of the House understand in broad terms by an occupational health scheme. We do not see the E.M.A.S. as a scheme of that sort. We do not see it as a substitute for such a scheme, nor do we believe that the original design was on those lines. This is not an alternative to an occupational health scheme, nor is it intended to be such a scheme.
I shall not go into the merits of seeking to define what is meant by an occupational health scheme. What is broadly understood is so wide and demanding of resources as to involve a thorough-going recasting of the structure of the


National Health Service, and would therefore be the primary responsibility, not of the Department of Employment, but of the Department of Health and Social Security.
I reiterate my regret that the Bill does not follow the path of the original Measure and make provision for dealing with the problems we find in industrial safety. By eliminating the original proposals and not replacing them, the Government have shown a surprising apathy and complacency in the face of what must be considered, despite the encouraging trend of the figures—they are improving and we welcome this trend —a disturbing, not to say distressing, toll of human life and limb.
None of us can afford to be complacent when the undertaker must deal twice a day with the consequences of negligence and the result of accident and injury, and when the doctors must deal 1,000 times a day with the consequences of inadequate provision for safety in industry.
Despite my criticisms of the Government and the Bill—and we shall seek to improve the Measure in Committee—I welcome the creation of the Employment Medical Advisory Service and wish it well in its work and future.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. Philip Holland: The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) rather churlishly complained that the Bill was here in 1971 rather than in 1970. The reason is surely that the good intentions of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were frustrated by the faulty political judgment of his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in 1970.
The reality of the hon. Gentleman's sound and fury about the loss of the industrial safety part of his Measure in 1970 should have been, and probably was, subconsciously directed at the Leader of the Opposition rather than at the present Government.
In the debate on Second Reading of his Bill in 1970 I congratulated the hon. Member for Doncaster and his right hon. Friends for having brought forward proposals to replace the appointed factory doctor service with an employment medical advisory service. However, in

view of the circumstances, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to withdraw at any rate some of the congratulations and bestow them on my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, in the belief that, while they were premature congratulations in 1970, they will not be premature to my hon. Friend in 1971.
I said in 1970 that the proposal to reorganise and streamline the industrial health service was timely. I agree with the hon. Member for Doncaster that it is even more timely and welcome now, and perhaps we now have a Measure which will go through all its stages rapidly and be on the Statute Book to improve the industrial health service.
One advantage of debating a proposal which was previously before the House, before there was a change of Government, is that one has on the record what both Front Bench spokesmen said when they were on opposite sides of the House. This is a considerable advantage for hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate. In these circumstances, I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to his remarks on 2nd March, 1970, when he made reference to the Society of Occupational Medicine.
He told the House that at first the Society had feared that the concept of occupational medicine within industry was likely to be primarily toxicological and therefore rather limited in scope. He took the view, however, that as the new service was to be advisory, its terms of reference would probably include the environmental, psychological and behavioural, as regards both groups and individuals, as well as the epidemiological and the physiological. If any hon. Member requires a definition of these terms he should apply to my hon. Friend. He used them first.
I hope that the Under-Secretary still takes that view now that he is in office. I hope so not because I have been lobbied by the Society of Occupational Medicine but because I am rather appalled at the growth of what amounts to a new industry which is to some extent parasitic. I refer to the increasing numbers of seminars, conferences, teach-ins or whatever the current "in-word" happens to be for a day spent at ease in a glossy hotel listening to a bright young P.R.


boy talking pseudo-knowledgeably about "motivational research" and "job enrichment".
I am not referring to the excellent work that is being done in the training sphere by reputable organisations such as the I.P.M. and the Industrial Society, but there appears to be a rash of new little companies being set up for the purpose of milking industry of a portion of its earnings in return for feeding executives and supervisors a load of academic eyewash about how to enrich repetitive work in a mass-production plant.
I hope that one of the early projects to be undertaken by the new Employment Medical Advisory Service will be research in this sphere to establish exactly what the needs are, and I suspect that in many cases it is arrogance to assume that shop-floor operators want to have their jobs enriched in the way that some of these academics suggest.
What is monotony to one man may be regarded as an opportunity for "money for old rope" to another. Different individuals seek different satisfactions in their work. Some people need to be fully mentally extended. Others seek the satisfaction of earning as much take-home pay as possible, and can best achieve this doing the sort of work that would drive you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and me into a mental hospital.
But this is all speculation. I should like to see a medically qualified research team carry out a study in depth into this field, and then publish an authoritative report on the subject. This of course raises the further question as to whether the new Employment Medical Advisory Service will have the facilities or adequate number of personnel to carry out this kind of study and publish reports, and not purely private departmental reports, for the general information of all who are concerned with personnel matters in industry.
The hon. Member for Doncaster will have been pleased to hear me raise this point in view of his earlier remarks about me. There is great need for this sort of authoritative report and advice. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will find time when he replies to deal with this aspect.
Of course, if the answer to my question is in the affirmative, then this raises

another question: to what extent would this kind of general research project, which could be of great value to industry as a whole, be financed out of fees levied on the companies in which the field-work was carried out on the grounds that, under the provisions of Clause 6, a company's employees had been subject to examination and supervision? The word "supervision" is used in the Bill and, of course, it has a wide meaning.
I understand that the C.B.I. has expressed some concern that there appears to be no distinction between fees to be charged for statutory medical examinations and the financing of research projects which may not be directly related to the establishment in which the fieldwork is carried out.
What concerns me even more is the fact that there does not seem to be any provision in the Bill for financing the Employment Medical Advisory Service to carry out research projects in the behavioural or environmental spheres.
One of the disturbing features of the growth in recent years in prestige of the personnel function has been the rise in charlatanism and gimmickry on the fringe of the subject. I hope that the new service may open a few windows and let in a little of the fresh air of common sense. To achieve this it is clearly desirable for members of the new service to be adequately qualified for the task.
In the 1970 debate my hon. Friend who is now the Under-Secretary drew attention to the fact that Clause 1(3) of the Bill then before the House called for no specialist training or experience for an appointment as medical adviser, other than the customary medical practitioner qualification. I am disappointed, therefore, to note that Clause 1(3) of the new Bill equally requires only that an appointee shall be a registered medical practitioner.
I suggest that when the Bill is in Committee, my hon. Friend may care to amend Clause 1(3) by adding a form of words at the end such as
and can furnish proof of specialised knowledge of industrial medicine or occupational medicine.
This could be done either by furnishing proof of medical experience in industry or by means of a diploma in occupational


health, industrial psychology or some similar qualification.
The drafting of the Bill could be couched in very general terms, but could still insist on there being an additional qualification that particularly fitted the members of the service for the work that they would have to do.
I am glad to have the Under-Secretary's assurance that education authorities will have the capability of fulfilling their obligations under Clause 1(6). Had my hon. Friend not checked on this matter before coming to the House today—a matter that he himself raised, as he said, 18 months ago—no doubt he would have been the target for brickbats from both sides of the House. I am glad that he took the precaution of checking this with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
By the standards of legislation that passes through this House, the Bill may be adjudged a minor Measure. I do not regard it so. Intelligently implemented, it may well prove to be a major step forward in preventive medicine in a field that has been for too long neglected and about which there tends to be at present a good deal of mystique but very little else.
While fully acknowledging the work of the factory doctor service over the years of its existence, and with the strict limitations imposed upon it by its nature and terms of reference, I await impatiently the birth of this proposed Employment Medical Advisory Service. May it be a lusty child and may it grow rapidly to full maturity. I wish it well.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I, too, give the Bill a qualified welcome. I am glad that the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) has had a late conversion to the value of consulting educational authorities and, in particular, the teachers, who were left out of our discussions in the last day of our debate in Standing Committee G on the Employed Persons (Health and Safety) Bill.
I am fed up with always waiting for someone. In the theatre we are waiting for Godot. In local government we were waiting for Maud. In this matter we are waiting for Robens. I have no doubt

that Robens will produce a first-class report.
In the Second Reading debate on 2nd March, 1970, I said that on the last available figures 254,000 people were injured every year. Since then, over 500,000 people have been injured in factories. Robens will not cure this, but certainly the implementation of the report would help to reduce it. By the time Robens reports, there may be 750,000 accidents and still no legislation on safety. I must take the Under-Secretary to task about this. The Government ought to have brought forward health and safety together, because they go together. For that, the Under-Secretary must be condemned.
There is no doubt that good health is a priceless possession. But all too often factory conditions involve a violation of the person. All too often conditions are uncivilised. A working environment in this day and age ought to respect the dignity and wonder of the human body. This is all too rare in industry today. I sometimes feel that workpeople have their lungs positively raped—I use the word advisedly—in many of our factories and workshops by dust, grit, toxic fumes and objectionable smoke. Still it goes on. All too often workpeople's senses are dulled and blasted by either noise or dull repetitive processes. That is why I welcome an occupational health service, which I hope will at least try to alleviate some of the hardships.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) I look forward to the Bill being improved and expanded in Committee. Certainly my hon. Friends, and no doubt hon. Gentlemen opposite, will be putting down Amendments to expand the Bill. I mention in particular the anxiety expressed that the National Health Service will have its work force of skilled people reduced by the Bill. Those of us who have been involved in industrial practice and industrial relations over the years would suggest to the House that the intelligent use of the Employment Medical Advisory Service will result in fewer workpeople having td visit the general practitioner as a result of a deficiency in health caused by working conditions. The intelligent expansion of this service will reduce our general practitioners' work load.
I was pleased to note in Clause 1(2) the idea of the establishment of laboratories and research units to investigate problems, and that the Secretary of State may
… provide and maintain such laboratories and other services as appear to him to be requisite.
I should like to think that the laboratories and the service generally will be concerned with monitoring the adverse effects of new processes before it is too late. At the same time, I hope that they will take cognisance of the need to control the existing hazards to health in factories and, on a rather unusual note, I hope that they will be allowed to report back to the Secretary of State for Employment and the Secretary of State for the Environment on the environmental factors involved in certain processes, such as effluent and smoke emission. But above all, the organisation ought to be independent and ought to have teeth.
I say that with some feeling because I was brought up in a Welsh mining community and I now have a constituency with a very strong mining interest. All too often I have seen my people abused by the evils of pneumoconiosis, and not only the evils themselves but the way in which they were interpreted. The miners knew that they had pneumoconiosis. Their wives and their doctors in our community knew that they had pneumoconiosis. But medical panels and legal committees would argue the niceties and the percentages and would say that it was bronchitis or asthma. But every man, woman and child in the mining community knew, in their heart of hearts, that it was pneumoconiosis. People are still coming to my political surgery with this complaint, having been turned down by the panel.

Mr. Holland: In my experience it is often the medical boards and the panels that turn down these applications and, because they are medically and technically qualified, there must be little that laymen can do about reversing their decisions. How does the hon. Gentleman suggest that a further medical panel will change this? I do not follow the argument.

Mr. Carter-Jones: The hon. Gentleman jumped the gun a little. I was saying that such people are motivated frequently

by a desire to protect the compensation fund. I hope that these new personnel will have sufficient independence to report any new diseases or risks early, thus making it clear that in future a disease will be recognisable and diagnosed and that there will be no beating about the bush as to whether, for instance, a disease is pneumoconiosis or something else: it will be a classifiable and verifiable disease known to diagnosticians. Does that satisfy the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Holland: Indeed, it does.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I hope that there will be no more industrial diseases, but, if there are, I hope that appeals in connection with industrial diseases will be unnecessary and that workpeople who suffer and widows of those who have died from occupational disease will be protected.
As to the provisions of Clause 1(6), on 14th May, 1970, in Standing Committee G on the Employed Persons (Health and Safety) Bill, the argument raged backwards and forwards as to who should have access to records. I believe that the Employment Medical Advisory Service should have as much information as possible to ensure that young people entering industry will not be prejudiced, because some young people may be medically or psychologically unsuited for the tasks they are taking on.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's interesting speech, to which I am listening with great attention. The employment medical adviser will have access to the school medical records of young people whose health is in doubt. This is part of these provisions. There will be a complete linkup. Confidentiality will apply as between medical person and medical person.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Glory be for a late conversion. We are glad to have the Under-Secretary on our side.
Clause 1(9) concerning training for disabled persons causes me alarm. I am not particularly impressed by the performance of the Department vis-à-vis disabled people. There is room for considerable improvement. I hope that the Advisory Service will not become too involved in stopping disabled people from obtaining work.
Clause 4(1)—
Employment of women and young persons in processes involving the use of lead compounds"—
must command our full support. I hope that it will be possible for the Bill to be amended so as to provide—"including all other toxic materials and potentially toxic materials".
I repeat my qualified welcome for the Bill. I hope that we shall be able to improve it in Committee so as to enable it to make a much more substantial and significant contribution to occupational health.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. Adam Butler: It is difficult not to welcome a Bill which is the result of the recommendations of an advisory committee and which has two-party support, although somewhat grudgingly expressed by hon. Members opposite. Our task is to debate the Bill and not last year's or next year's Bill, which is what the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) seemed to want to do.
The mention by the hon. Member for Doncaster of the Government's preoccupation with, as he put it, curbing the unions, or, as I will put it, industrial relations reform, may redound slightly on him, because I am sure that he is aware of what is written in the Draft Code of Industrial Relations about industrial health and safety matters and the obligations which the Code places on employers.
The Bill should be welcomed, not only because of the general support that it commands, but also because State involvement of this type in health and welfare matters is accepted in principle and has become a factor in our industrial history. However, it would be wrong not to examine these proposals fairly closely. I imagine that this is what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has been doing over the last 18 months.
We are all aware of the need for the implementation of provisions of this type, or at any rate with the need to achieve the objects which these proposals seek to achieve. I question whether the work which is required can be done in a better way. Perhaps more work could be done by individual companies or by industrial medical group schemes. If so, should

such schemes be voluntary, with government encouragement, or should they be made compulsory by legislation?
Another general question is whether the resources are available to achieve what we are trying to do.
My experience has been gained from working in a large group of companies where various health risks or hazards arise from the manufacture of chemicals and their use in yarn or fibre production, and also hazards arising from the noise and eye strain which may be part of the processing of these yarns into fabric and garments.
This group of companies has run a comprehensive medical scheme for some years with a staff of qualified doctors and nurses. Annual examinations have been conducted on certain workers engaged in what might be described as potentially hazardous production processes in the manufacture of yarn. These examinations are being conducted by general practitioners attached to each factory on a part-time basis and not appointed as part of the factory doctor service.
There are plenty of other examples where company schemes operate. Despite what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, and the emphasis he laid on supporting company schemes, I am not sure that the Bill displays real concern for and recognition of the work done by such schemes. The Bill must ensure their continuity and it must make use of them.
The Confederation of British Industry wants qualified staff in companies to be recognised as part-time employment medical advisers. I question that proposal. It might be better for them to be permitted to carry out examinations which would be fully recognised under this legislation. Some supervision of such examinations would be needed to ensure that they came up to the required standards; but, as the people that I am referring to are all professionally qualified, only superficial checking would be necessary.
The contribution of such company schemes and of company medical officers is invaluable. These names will be well known to the experts in the House; but nearly all our knowledge of nasal cancer in the chemical industry is due to Dr.


Amor and of bladder cancer in the dyestuffs industry to the late Dr. M. Williams, both employed by I.C.I. They and others of their type have made an invaluable contribution. They, their colleagues and their successors must be dovetailed into the new scheme.
I am led to believe that the experience of those who work in industry in the way I described is that it is not always possible to distinguish between injury or disease which is caused at work or in outside employment or, indeed, at leisure, and I wonder whether, as Clause 3 requires, it is possible to confine the work of E.M.A.S. to situations where health is being or may be affected by a person's work, and by work only. I query this very much from the experience of those now involved in occupational schemes.
Then on Clause 4, where the reference is only to those occupations involved in the use of lead compounds—and there have been suggestions this evening that we should include those occupations, too, where there are hazards from toxic substances—I wonder whether, as a general point, the E.M.A.S. can require individuals to undergo an examination before they are employed on potentially hazardous work and to submit to regular checks.
I am thinking of much more simple situations than those I have just mentioned—situations, for instance, involving noise where it would be wrong to employ those with suspected weak ear drums or, again something equally simple, where the work requires excessively precise eyesight and where there is a strain on the eyes. Is it conceived under this Bill, and will it be possible, for eye tests or ear tests to be carried out before a worker is taken on for a particular job where these hazards exist?
Then, looking at Clause 5, I must agree absolutely that to continue to examine young people regularly on a 100 per cent. basis would be a complete waste of time. They are mostly healthy. But the success of the proposals in Clause 5 depends on this relationship to which my hon. Friend has referred, the relationship between the careers officer, the School Health Service and the E.M.A.S. My hon. Friend spoke with great confidence about the ability of the School Health Service to stand up to this test; but, as

I see it, reference will be passed to the careers office when young men or women are taken on, and I presume that the names will be checked against the list held in the careers office for the suitability or otherwise of the employment.
However, this is dependent on adequate records being available from the School Health Service, and I must query from what I have heard whether those records are truly available for immediate checks—because it is no good checks taking weeks—and whether the records are adequate.
As one of my last general questions I posed the point whether the resources were really available for this new service. My hon. Friend has already confirmed to me that there will be a concentration on full-time doctors and staff as far as possible, in order to have a really expert and specialist body. This is right. But where are these 50 additional full-time doctors coming from? I can see that the National Health Service will benefit from the 1,500 or so appointed factory doctors being released back into the National Health Service full time; but they were, after all, only doing a few hours a week each, and, whereas they were involved for the greatest part of their time on conventional work within the National Health Service, the additional 50 will he withdrawn from it, I am also interested in the comments which have been made about the complete restructuring of the National Health Service and the possibility implied in my hon. Friend's opening remarks that the E.M.A. Service might eventually leave his Department.
The fact is, however, that to begin with and under the Bill as proposed, these 50 or so doctors will be withdrawn from the National Health Service. It is generally accepted that the National Health Service is under-recruited. In my area in particular we feel this through delays in consultation and delays in operations after those consultations, and our accident and emergency departments suffer from under-staffing. So can we afford from our over-burdened National Health Service 50 qualified doctors?
Can my hon. Friend, in winding-up, comment on the status and pay of these men? I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) that


they should preferably have extra qualifications and, therefore, they are most likely to be recruited from those who already serve as appointed factory doctors. This would be sensible.

Mr. Holland: Or possibly medical officers from industry—not necessarily from factories. I would have thought that was a better experience.

Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend is right. Those men will certainly have had a greater experience. Most of the appointed factory doctors do only a few hours a week in industrial work.
I also query what sort of man will this new service attract. It will be a different sort of existence from most of the work carried out within the National Health Service, and I query whether the bright young man is going to be attracted into this service. I wonder whether my hon. Friend has any particular source of recruitment in mind and whether he would comment on my worries about the type of person who might come forward.
Generally, this is a question of priorities. The hon. Member for Doncaster has accused the Government of cheeseparing this service by cutting down on the number of doctors and reducing the amount of money to be spent. This is a question of judgment. There is only a limited number of doctors to go round, and there is only a limited amount of money which can be spent in this way. As I say, it is a question of judgment.
I feel, on balance, that this figure of 50 doctors is probably the right one which, added to the 50 already employed, gives us a round 100. I am not prepared to argue with the hon. Member for Doncaster on this point, but I think it is a quibble on his part and not on mine. The point is that if we withdraw these men from the National Health Service we must be fully aware of the extra strain which is being put on that service.
I have not examined this Bill in depth, but I have run a critical eye, or a stethoscope, over it. No doubt, much will come out in the Committee stage and Amendments will be made. But, in principle, I strongly welcome the Bill, in the light of my own experience of occupational

medicine in industry, and I shall just be grateful if my hon. Friend can reassure or enlighten me on some of the points which I have raised.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. David Watkins: The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) has, as he put it, run a critical stethoscope over the Bill, and, having given it informed scrutiny, has accorded it a critical welcome. I noted, in particular, the question which he raised early on in his speech, which, I think, he took as his main theme: are the resources, not only the resources allocated under the Bill but our overall national resources, sufficient for the objects in mind?
Further, the hon. Gentleman queried whether the Bill's proposals were such that they could be integrated properly with the occupational health schemes operated by some companies. True, there are some very good company schemes, but in a large part of industry such schemes are virtually non-existent. This is, after all, the basis of our need for a Bill of this kind.
It is interesting that all hon. Members who have spoken so far, apart from the Under-Secretary of State, have given the Bill a pretty critical welcome. The hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland), who is always listened to with respect on these occasions, and who speaks from knowledge and experience, gave it a rather critical welcome. For my part, I give it something less than half a welcome, because it seems to me to be something less than half a Bill. The Government have lifted, more or less, the first half of the Employed Persons (Health and Safety) Bill which was introduced by the Labour Government in the last Parliament, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) said—these were not his words—they have to some extent fiddled about with it.
The Explanatory Memorandum tells us, among other things, that Clause 1
requires the Secretary of State to establish and maintain an employment medical advisory service".
By contrast, the previous Bill merely gave the Secretary of State power initially to establish such a service. I welcome this improvement, making it mandatory rather than permissive, but I


feel justified in pointing out that all that the Government have done is to incorporate my own Amendment No. 1 from the Committee stage of the Labour Government's Bill, that Amendment having been carried by the Committee.

Mr. Dudley Smith: It only goes to show that we pay attention to good, sensible and practical Amendments from whatever quarter they come.

Mr. Watkins: A most flattering reception, but the hon. Gentleman must not seek to undermine my critical powers. He will not succeed by flattery.

Mr. Harold Walker: My hon. Friend will confirm that there was no Division in the Committee, and I responded to the eloquence with which he moved the Amendment by accepting it on behalf of the Government.

Mr. Watkins: My hon. Friend did precisely that. Moreover, he listened to eloquence coming from what the Under-Secretary of State would probably describe as all quarters, and not only on that Amendment but on others he responded in the same fashion.
I welcome the improvement, as I say, with the justified proviso which I have stated. I am glad that the permissive provision in Clause 1 of the previous Bill is replaced by a mandatory requirement. None the less, I feel that the Government ought not to try to claim credit for it, since they are merely taking up something done in Committee on the previous Bill.
It is proposed under the Bill to recruit the equivalent of 50 full-time doctors, and this is to be compared with the equivalent of 60 full-time doctors under the Labour Government's Bill. Also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster pointed out, there is smaller financial provision in this Bill than there was in the previous one. What the Bill also does is to drop completely the second half of the previous Bill, which introduced the principle of compulsory joint consultation between managements and trade unions on the matter of industrial health and safety, and above all industrial accident prevention. It is for those reasons that I say that it is less than half a Bill and that it deserves less than half a welcome.
We are all waiting for Robens. We are usually waiting for somebody or something. My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) said in theatrical terms that we were waiting for Godot, and at an even earlier stage we were waiting for Lefty. That we are waiting for somebody before something is done about an important problem is an argument much too often reiterated here. What is required is a major Bill combining the Factories Act, 1961 and the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, 1963 and also containing provisions to extend and modernise our whole national approach to the great issue of industrial health and safety. The modern developments in industrial accident prevention in particular are not being applied with anything like sufficient force in industry generally.
It is sad to recall that a start was once made in the House on the road which would have led to such a major Act as I have referred to. With the advent of this Bill, that great start seems to have fizzled out completely. It was in June. 1967, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter), then Minister of Labour, said in answer to a Written Question that he was contemplating such a Bill, and in December of that year he issued a consultative document outlining his thinking on the subject. After a considerable passage of time, in March, 1970 the Employed Persons (Health and Safety) Bill, a much lesser Measure, was introduced and was filbustered out of existence by the then Opposition in Committee.
Now here we are with this little Bill, the proposals of which are derisory in comparison with the magnitude of the problem of injury and disease at work, which it makes a tentative start at seeking to come to grips with. Dropping the principle of joint consultation is an especially retrograde step. It typifies the Government's approach to the whole idea of having working people involved in any way in decision-making in industry and their obvious intention to seek to have working people excluded from such decision-making even on such important matters, where they are so much the potential victims, as industrial health, or lack of health, and injury.
In preparation for the debate I have looked back over some of the records, and I have found that consistently over a century there has been similar opposition from the Tory benches. When I say "a century", I am not exaggerating, because the principle which is being dropped from the Bill was initially enshrined in the Mines Regulation Act as long ago as 1872. One of my predecessors, Sir George Elliot, who was then one of two Members in the old Durham, North division, was reported as saying:
There was, however, one provision which would be extremely objectionable, and that was, that the men might appoint two or more among themselves, if desirous of so doing, for inspecting the mine.
If any hon. Member wants to check that, he will find it in HANSARD of 12th February, 1872, at columns 244–245 of Volume 209 of the Third Series.
Here we are—a century later, all but a few months—considering a Bill in which quite consciously the same principle which Sir George Elliot fulminated against 100 years ago has been deliberately dropped by the Government in a Bill which is a lesser re-hash of one which formerly incorporated that principle. As the rest of the country goes forward into the seventh decade of the 20th century, the Government are still kicking and screaming against the first decade.
Something of the low regard the Government have for this subject in general is measured not only by their delay in introducing the Bill, but by their allocation of only three hours to the Second Reading of a Measure which everyone concedes deals with a vitally important subject.
I welcome the Bill, as far as it goes, because it grapples, although I fear it will prove to grapple rather ineffectively, with a fairly major national problem. I add my voice to the voices of my hon. Friends who have already indicated that in Committee we shall seek by the most detailed and searching examination to remedy the Bill's present inadequacies.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Robert Redmond: I thank you Mr. Deputy Speaker for calling me and my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler),

because until my hon. Friend rose I began to think that this was a private argument among people who had taken part in previous debates on another Bill —the Employed Persons (Health and Safety) Bill. Now I know that anyone can join in. The previous Bill was killed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson), but as this Measure is welcomed by the Opposition I hope that they will speed it on its way, although I gather from the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) that we shall hear about something that happened under the Liberal Government in 1872. I am not concerned about what went on 18 months ago: I want to hasten the Bill on to the Statute Book in its own right.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) has left the Chamber because he and I represent Lancashire seats and I thought that he was right in what he said about diseases like pneumoconiosis. I wish I could think that his hope that there will be no more industrial diseases will come true, but new diseases can easily come from new processes, and the Bill is essential if we are to avoid what could be the natural consequences of the new technological advances and processes that are continually being brought into industry.
My hon. Friend mentioned the C.B.I. view that the E.M.A.S. should consult existing staff in factories. I should not think legislation was necessary there, because I am sure that in the interests of good industrial relations employers will never allow the sanction in the Bill to be applied. It is a matter of common sense that all employers should co-operate.
The Opposition's main argument appears to be that the Bill does not do anything about industrial safety. The Bill provides a medical advisory service. Industrial safety is being dealt with by the Robens Committee and we must see what that Committee recommends. That does not make sense. We should get this part of the requirement on to the Statute Book as soon as possible. Why set up a Committee under Lord Robens and then try to anticipate its findings? There seems to be no point in anticipating a Bill dealing with industrial safety at this juncture. It is true that there is a thin line between health and safety. Together they lead to good industrial relations,


good productivity, and should be welcomed by anyone. On those grounds I welcome the Bill.
There are three questions I should like to put to my hon. Friend. I am a little worried in another context about the apparent rundown of the mass radiography services which have done so much in recent years to stamp out the incidence of tuberculosis. I am no expert but, as I understand it, the success of mass radiography has led to the removal of the need for such a service to some extent. There may be some industries in which, under Clause 3, the employment medical adviser may exercise his power to carry out a medical examination for suspected T.B. I would suggest that there are some geographical areas where this could be equally necessary, not because of T.B. being caused through any industrial process.
A lot of hot air has been generated on this subject, particularly after that unfortunate article on the centre page of the Sunday Express yesterday. I am sure everyone will recognise that this is not a matter of race prejudice when I say that the incidence of tuberculosis among the immigrant population is higher than we would expect it to be and higher than it is amongst the indigenous population. The mass radiography service could be brought in here and used in areas where the incidence of T.B. is greatest. If the service were to lapse completely, I hope that under the provisions of this Bill it could be revived.
Under Clause 6 employers have to pay for the medical examination. Is it possible to give some idea of what the cost will be? The cost of administering the service is said to be £850,000, set off by receipts of about £100,000. The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) has asked for more to be spent. He suggests that fees for medical examinations will not be very great. I know that many people in the board rooms, particularly of the smaller companies, are frightened by what they regard as any additional tax on jobs such as we have had through the levies from the industrial training boards and S.E.T. I should not like to see anything happening to discourage industry from providing jobs. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Doncaster wish to intervene?

Mr. Harold Walker: I was simply suggesting to one of my hon. Friends that I heard echoes of the dinosaurs when I heard the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we ought not to deter employers from providing jobs by charging fees for medical examinations. I take it that was the gist of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. No doubt that was the same kind of argument levelled in this Chamber at Shaftesbury a hundred-odd years ago when he introduced his Ten Hours Bill.

Mr. Redmond: It is a pity the hon. Gentleman was reading something else —or appeared to be—when I was speaking. I thank him for enabling me to clear up that point and knock it hard on the head. I would of course, had I been here, have supported the Earl of Shaftesbury who was a good member of the Tory Party. Let us not forget that. But we do not want to go into a history lesson. I was saying that there are employers who are worried about the constant levies upon them for the number of employees they have. I instanced in particular selective employment tax and the levies of the industrial training boards. I also said that I did not think that £100,000 was a great sum of money and indicated therefore that the charges would not be great. But it will be of great help if this can be cleared up. It was really to prevent any argument about what the hon. Gentleman called "dinosaurs" that I mentioned the point, and it is a great pity that he was writing his wind-up speech at the time, for otherwise he would have got the point.
How are we to employ the 12 nurses—or have I got this figure wrong? We are apparently to have 100 doctors—50 full-time and 50 part-time—and if there are only to be 12 nurses between them I do not see how we shall be able to spread the services of the 12 nurses throughout the country on an equitable basis. The number may, indeed, be so small that it may not be worth having. Have I misunderstood the situation? My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) has fears about the shortage of doctors. I think that there could be a shortage of nurses in this scheme if we are to employ only 12.
I am glad that the new service is to remain under the Department of Employment. It would be a great mistake to


put it under any other Department. I could not quite follow the hon. Member for Doncaster in his argument, but I would say that the primary factor in this scheme is that it is an industrial service, and I think it is necessary for the people engaged in it to talk the language of industry and industrial relations. To put the service under the Department of Health and Social Security would be quite wrong. I welcome the Bill and hope that it gets a speedy passage through the House.

8.52 p.m.

Dr. David Owen: The problem which the House is discussing is the health of some 20 million working people—people who spend one-third of the 24 hours of each working day in their working environment, people who in various industries are well known to be susceptible to noxious agents and industrial disease. We need to put their health in perspective. For every day lost by strikes, 10 days are lost by industrial injury and disease. But an even more revealing perspective is that for every day lost by strikes 100 days are lost by ordinary illnesses.
Instead of trying to improve the deleterious effect of work on health in industry, I think we now need to take a much greater interest in how we can improve people's health in work. This is an ambitious aim but it is one which has won support on both sides of the House, as well as in practically every single professional body which has ever studied the issue. We should, therefore, judge the Bill on how it measures up to the whole question of providing a comprehensive occupational health service, and by that measure it lamentably fails. It is at best a side-stepping of the central issue. I think that it will prove to have delayed the introduction of a comprehensive occupational health service. I must confess to a great fear that once we have legislated in this very limited and partial manner, the Government—of either party—will use it as an excuse not to tackle the really central issue, which is to provide an occupational health service.
All that is being done in the Bill is to add to the existing 19 medical inspectors of factories a further 50 full-time medical equivalents—in other words, to

provide 69 full-time doctors. That is only a fraction of the medical manpower in occupational health services. The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) paid tribute to existing schemes run by industry—for example, by some private companies like I.C.I. and by some nationalised industries—and I readily echo that tribute. They are providing by far the largest percentage of all medical care to people in industry. I believe that the equivalent of 600 doctors are employed full time by these industries. I pay tribute to the Royal Dockyards, the industry which first gave me my interest in occupational health, where many of the medical services are provided by the Royal Navy. They have done pioneering work on asbestosis and the danger to a man's health from working with asbestos. The severity of this as an occupational illness has come to the fore only in the last decade.
Although these industries are already making excellent efforts to meet the demand, they are industries which would not be doing it unless they saw an economic return. I.C.I., for example, would not invest in this if it did not think that there was an overall economic return, quite apart from its moral commitment. Yet, looking at the pattern, one sees that the industries mainly concerned are those with over 3,000 employees. Of the 2,000 or so factories with more than 500 employees, only about 1,300 have the services of a part-time or full-time doctor, and of about 195,000 factories with 100 or fewer employees, only about 1,800 have the services of a full-time or part-time doctor.
I suspect that anyone examining closely the services actually available will often find that they are woefully inadequate. Voluntary provision amongst our major industries has made a great contribution to occupational health in those industries, but one of the sad features is that that voluntary provision in recent years has virtually ceased to expand. For that reason, the Bill must be looked at against the background that, without further stimulus, it does not seem that an occupational health service will be provided on any sort of scale.
We have heard mention of group occupational health services. It may be that they provide the best foundation on which to expand. However, if one looks at the


list of the seven existing group occupational health services, one sees no prospect of any major expansion on them. I find that regrettable. I wish that it were possible to take a more optimistic view of the future.
Why is it that this House in 1971 is paying a tribute in certain quarters to this fairly miserable Bill when it is set beside the history of occupational health? In 1949, the Government appointed the Dale Committee to consider the relationship between the National Health Service and the various health services then provided in industry. In its report, the Committee recommended the establishment of a service which made
… comprehensive provision for occupational health covering not only industrial establishments of all kinds, large and small, but also … non-industrial occupations.
Over the years, we have seen an ever-increasing body of opinion demanding some form of comprehensive occupational health service. In 1959, the Internatioinal Labour Conference adopted a resolution on the organisation of occupational health services in places of employment. That became its Recommendation 112. It was accepted by Her Majesty's Government, who hastily made it clear that it would not apply in this country since we had a National Health Service already.
As for the European Economic Community, Articles 117 and 118 of the Treaty of Rome pay tribute to the essentially preventive character of occupational health services. In the Community countries, there are three recommendations already in existence. We see that in 1946 France established a comprehensive health service. Belgium has something somewhat similar. The Netherlands has produced a health service at which we could well take a close look. Possibly only Germany and Italy do not have a fully comprehensive health service, but even they provide services from which we could learn a goad deal.
In 1961, the Medical Services Review Committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Arthur Porritt, came out in favour of establishing a comprehensive occupational health service as an integral part of a centrally co-ordinated National Health Service. The Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Association

favour such a scheme. It is obvious that the Society of Occupational Medicine also favours such a scheme. A detailed memorandum was presented to the Robens Committee on this subject. I found the statement of the Committee—and presumably it was given with the permission of Lord Robens—profoundly disappointing. It is clear from what the Minister has said that the Robens Committee will not produce any major recommendations for the long-term future of the occupational health service. It sees this as a fringe matter.
There was a chink of light in what the Minister said in answer to my intervention, namely, that in the reorganisation of the National Health Service the Government would not exclude the possibility of legislation covering occupational health. However, I understand that already in the consultation process the Government have told the organisations concerned that they have no intention of introducing an occupational health service in any N.H.S. reorganisation.
The prospect for the production of a comprehensive occupational health service is poor. The Royal Commission on Medical Education appeared to think it would be some time before there were any changes in occupational health. I should like to quote from what was said by a senior medical inspector at a meeting of the European Regional Office of the World Health Organisation:
In spite of many claims over many years that medical services in industry save working time, no objective evidence that they do has been produced: even if they do, the present view is that the amount of medical and nursing time deviated from therapeutic medical services (including general and hospital practice) is not justified".
That may be his view. It is not my view. It is not the view of private industry, prepared to put money into their own occupational health services. I hope that it is not the Government's view, and I hope that it was not the view of the Labour Government.
The Minister made the usual qualifications of this Bill in order to placate the various organisations putting pressure on him, just as his predecessor did, by saying that this was not a comprehensive occupational health service but that he foresaw the day when it might come and that the Government were not completely closing the door. What is the extent of


the commitment to produce a comprehensive medical service? I realise that there are tremendous demands on medical manpower. I accept that a scheme cannot be introduced overnight. I also accept that any scheme which is introduced must run in harmony with existing schemes in industry, whether nationalised or private industry.
But the House and successive Governments have totally failed to grasp the essential problem. I hope that when we become members of the European Economic Community the countries of the Community will put pressure on us to provide an overall comprehensive health service. The Royal College of Nursing has written to the Secretary of State to express
… its grave concern that the E.M.A.S. is to remain within the Department of Employment".
If one sees the development of an occupational health service purely in terms of an inspectorate or of an external service imposed by Government on industry and paid for by general taxes, it is legitimate to say that it should stay in the Department of Employment. But, viewing it in the wider health context of the man at work, it must logically fall under the Department of Health and Social Security.
It is time that we had a pledge from the Government that they will introduce legislation to provide an occupational health service. There are two major ways in which that could be done. We could have an external service organised for industry by the Government paid for by taxes and as part of the overall National Health Service. Over the years, this has had many proponents, but it is open to grave objection. I do not think it will come about.
A much more attractive alternative is what I will call an internal occupational health service organised by industry under legal compulsion by the Government and with minimum standards controlled by the Government who would probably maintain some executive control of the statutory inspectorate aspect. The latter point will be looked at by Lord Robens and his Committee. It would not surprise me if he decided to take all of the inspectorates together and tried to rationalise the structure under the

Department of the Environment—and there is as much logic in that as there is in putting some under the Department of Employment and some under other Departments.
The strongest argument, in my view, for overriding an externally organised occupational health service and in favour of choosing an internally organised occupational health service is that the internally organised service lends itself to be organised on an industry basis and not a regional basis. A chemical worker's occupational health problems are likely to be very similar whether he is working in the North-East or in the South-West; and a coal worker's occupational health problems will be the same whether he works in Wales or in Durham. The managerial involvement is likely to become much stronger if such an organisation is industry-specific and the degree of expertise among occupational health workers, the medical workers and the social workers is likely to be stronger also. For these reasons I would come down in favour of an internally organised service.

Mr. Holland: Could the hon. Gentleman amplify a little the sort of structure he has in mind? Would it be something on the lines of an industrial training board which is financed by a particular industry?

Dr. Owen: That is the sort of structure one is envisaging. A small factory, for instance, has not necessarily the financial resources to support a full-time doctor or even, perhaps, a full-time nurse. It has been the case in Slough, Harlow, in central Middlesex, and other areas, that firms in different industries have come together in a group and have collectively funded medical help. One would hope that the health team—doctor, nurse and the social worker—would provide a complete service in the area, and that is the kind of development which I would like to see.
What we should try to do is to introduce an overall occupational health service; it should be phased, and have Government money behind it in the introductory period, to get the system running, to get the groupings working. This is what the Nuffield Foundation has been doing over the years besides all the other things it has been doing. One cannot expect the Nuffield Foundation to go on


doing more and more indefinitely. Now the Government should put money behind this work and after a period of two or three years, when the system has been running in an area or industry, the Government should say, "Now this is your responsibility and you can choose to run and finance it yourself, or you can subcontract it, so to speak, to an area health board."
This is where reorganisation of the health service becomes of major significance. An area health board could take responsibility for occupational health, just as much as it is now planned it will take the new responsibility for community health, and in areas of high industrial development I believe that an area health board should have a specialist in occupational health to stimulate provision of small groupings in an area and an expert consultative service.
I know that this may be reasonably expensive in terms of manpower, but the Minister himself is thinking of a manpower of 100 doctors. This figure is very inspection-oriented. I am not denying that there is a need for inspection. It may be that that aspect of a statutory obligation would always stay outside the general scheme and stay under the Department of Employment. I do not feel very strongly about that, but what I am asking is that the Government should lift their sights and look at the much more important and a greater problem of providing for healthy workers. One of the problems of medicine anywhere is of access to somebody who is ill; a successful treatment should be speedy and efficient.
I come back to the words to which I referred earlier, of the senior medical inspector, and what may be the Government's view, perhaps, although I only hope it is not, that surely industry itself would not be providing this service if it did not think there was an economic return. Industry does not agree with the senior medical inspector. It thinks it a sound use of existing medical facilities and manpower to provide such a service in the factories. They are increasingly concerning themselves with the wider environmental problems and providing a healthier atmosphere, and psychological medical problems must also be taken into account.
I hope the hon. Gentleman in reply will assure the House that this small Bill once on the Statute Book will not be used as an excuse not to produce legislation next year when we come to reorganise the whole National Health Service and at a time when the Robens Committee's recommendations have been absorbed. I hope that we shall not be told, "Let us see how the E.M.A.S. works out. Therefore, let us leave it for a decade." That will be a recipe for further delay, frustration and lost opportunities.
This country already lags woefully behind many of our industrial competitors, all of which have to watch their industrial costs so that they do not price themselves out of the market. This country, having pioneered the National Health Service, cannot go on lagging so far behind in occupational health services.
This Bill does not provide the framework within which to develop an overall occupational health service. I hope the Bill will be improved in Committee. I should like to emphasise the importance of specific occupational health training for the doctors and nurses who are to work in the service. I should like there to be greater examination of how the system will work in harmony with existing schemes conducted by private industry.
My major concern is that the Bill does not have widespread support, and it is an illusion to think that it does. It may have support between both Front Benches, but there is not a single person interested in occupational health who sees this legislation as a very definite advance; indeed many fear that it will be used as an excuse for some years ahead to do nothing substantial.
The first thing that must be done is to convince the Department of Health and Social Security and its senior advisers that there is a need for an occupational health service. There are a number of key people who have held up an occupational health service for long enough. It is time that Ministers gave up listening to those people and, instead, paid attention to the views of the Royal College 0of Nursing, the British Medical Association, the Socialist Medical Association and all the unions involved who want an occupational health service. Their demands can be met, not by starving the


health service of doctors, but by sensible allocation of medical manpower in an effort to catch disease in its early stages. That is the challenge, and I hope the Bill will not be used as an excuse not to face up to it.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. Peter Doig: As a member of the largest trade union in Britain, I welcome this Bill because I believe it will do some good, however little, for the working people of this country. It does not go as far as I should like it to go but, having in mind the old adage that half a loaf is better than no bread, I welcome it.
It will be appreciated that Scotland has its own National Health Service. We have been told by the Government Front Bench that these provisions involve a temporary arrangement and that this system might be incorporated into the National Health Service. If this is the intention, it is surely a mistake that Scotland is to be incorporated in the Bill's provisions. Should there not be a similar Bill, on parallel or similar lines directed at the needs in Scotland Failing this, should there not be a completely separate Bill for Scotland?
We in Scotland in the past have suffered from the fact that a large number of the top administrative jobs have been held in centres in London. We are fortunate that the bulk of the staff of the Secretary of State for Scotland are resident and work in St. Andrew's House and that the Scottish Home and Health Department controls the health service in Scotland. When one remembers that the unemployment rate in Scotland is much higher than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, surely much of the administrative work should be carried out in Scotland.
In Dundee, which I represent, we have today the only unit in Scotland specialising in occupational medicine. There seems every reason to have this service centred in Scotland, remembering that we are far removed geographically from London and that the north of Scotland is more remote still. It is wrong, therefore, that a service such as this should be administered from London, especially when we have the National Health Service already established in Scotland.
This unit in Dundee, which I visited recently, provides a service to employers and employees alike. It receives donations from employers as well as charging them for certain services that are provided. I accept that it is wrong that the unit should have to depend on donations from private industry. It should have been properly equipped in the first place without donations being required. However, it is being supplied with money in this way and it is doing an effective job.
The unit in Dundee also provides a service for hospitals in the area. For example, it diagnoses blood and urine samples, and measures noise, dust and fume levels. It also suggests remedies for these difficulties, and this is a particularly import aspect of its work. It is already part of the university and will have a part in the new Nine Bells Hospital which is being constructed in Dundee—that is, if the hospital is ever finished. It has been under construction for so long that we wonder whether it will ever reach completion.
Will the Bill duplicate or replace this service in Dundee? This is an important question, because the unit at present advises the Government on the prescribing of industrial diseases. It does a great deal of research work on, for example, the testing and incidence of deafness and how deafness can increase as a result of excessive noise.
Our main industry in Dundee is based on the jute mills and conditions in this industry have improved vastly in recent years. At one time one could tell a jute mill worker in the street by the loudness of his voice. He or she had to speak so loudly to overcome the noise of the machinery in the jute mills that this level of conversation became a habit.
In addition, an excessive amount of dust tended to enter the lungs of jute mill workers. Fortunately, steps have been taken by managements, possibly assisted by this or a similar unit, to introduce things like dust extractors. These developments have helped to prevent diseases of the lungs. They have also tried to tone down excessive noise levels. These efforts have also helped, but only to a degree. More still needs to be done.
I hope that I have said enough to show that this unit in Dundee should be kept in being. Will it be done away with


under the proposed set-up? Will occupational hygienists travel from London to Inverness, Fort William and other parts of Scotland to conduct investigations? If so, why should this be necessary when we already have a unit in Scotland capable of doing—and already doing—this work? Will industry contribute to this service, as it does now to some degree to this Department of Occupational Medicine in Dundee? We have been told that it will contribute in relation to medical examinations. But will it contribute to the other services that an organisation such as this carries out, very often giving advice on how to reduce excessive noise and how to take steps to prevent these things happening? This is very necessary from a worker's point of view.
From where will the employment medical advisers seek help in their laboratory investigations? Will they use the existing laboratories or will environmental tests be referred to the factory inspector at the laboratory in London when we already have one in Scotland? Will they co-operate with the universities, as the present set up does? There is no mention of that in the Bill. Will the university interests in teaching and research be safegarded? Will existing university laboratories be used on an agency basis, as departments of bacteriology are at present? All these matters ought carefully to be considered.
There is nothing worse than seeing the effects of neglect in these matters, which could have been prevented had more money been spent by us a little while ago. Recently I was visited by a woman who brought with her a very young daughter in order to interpret what was being said because the woman was deaf and had learned to lip-read from the child. I realised then the effect of excessive noise in industry and how it accelerates the process of deafness which overtakes these people. In this case there was a cure. The Government gave a deaf aid to this woman. She said that it was useless. The experts pretty well agreed about that. A private firm then offered to lend her a commercial hearing aid. She tried that aid and found it quite effective and that she could work properly with it. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland about this case, giving him all the details and inquiring whether there was any way in which his

Department could assist the woman to buy this hearing aid, which cost about £60. The correct price was about £100, but, because it felt sorry for the woman, the firm offered it at cost price. In spite of this, the Department in Edinburgh refused any financial help.
But for the lateness of the hour, I could continue with case after case of victims of this neglect, this failure to provide a service of preventive medicine, where steps could have been taken to prevent these tragedies. When one considers a person who loses his hearing or whose sight is affected, or who has any other disability, such as being unable to walk up a hill without getting out of breath and having to stop two or three times, or being confined to his house because he is unable to go up and down stairs because of dust inhaled during his working life, one realises the necessity for such a Bill. That is why I welcome it. However small it may be, it will at least help someone if it encourages research into preventing this sort of tragedy. They are tragedies to the workers involved and their immediate families.

9.24 p.m.

Dr. Alan Glyn: One of the great difficulties facing the House is the general relationship between the facttories doctors and the general practitioner. As I see it, this is a serious difficulty, because the general practitioner is in locus parenti, or has a relation especially towards his patient, where that is not the case with the factory doctor in his capacity as a medical adviser. The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) brought this out very well when he said that what a factory doctor's job was was to point out the dangers and hazards of a particular industry, and these dangers exist in every industry. The difficulty has always been to secure a proper balance and relationship between the factory doctor and the family doctor whom the patient normally consults. The job of the factory doctor is to become accustomed to and advise on the peculiar hazards that arise in his factory and in his industry. In the old days one great problem was, for instance, silicosis in mining.
There is room for the establishment of a closer liaison between the factory doctor and the general practitioner. This is a sphere in which my hon. Friend the


Under-Secretary can help. A close liaison between a medical advisory service in an industry and a family doctor will produce the best possible service for the individual patient. All the knowledge which has been accumulated as a result of years of work by a factory doctor should be made available to the general practitioner so that when he is advising his patient he has available the knowledge accumulated over a period of years.
If the debate achieves nothing else, I hope that it will succeed in establishing a closer liaison between two branches of a profession which are essentially complementary. Together the factory doctor and the family doctor can help the patient to overcome what is for him an extremely difficult problem. About 12 years ago we debated the subject of silicosis, which was a peculiar problem associated with mining. At that time silicosis was not recognised as an industrial disease. As a result of that debate, and following legislation, it is now recognised that silicosis is a disease associated with mining and is a recognised industrial disease.
I repeat that the factory doctor and the general practitioner should always seek to co-operate, in the interests of helping the individual patient and of alleviating any condition of his arising from circumstances peculiar to the industry in which he is working. I am sure that the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) will not disagree that if we get these together working as a team, the interests of the ordinary patient, which is what we are really here to discuss, will be best served.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Harold Walker: With the leave of the House, I should like to make a few brief comments—I assure the House that they will be brief—to help draw to a conclusion this short but interesting, useful, constructive and at times lively debate.
The hon. Members for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond) and for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) said that they were not concerned, nor should the House be concerned, with the Measures of yesterday, but that we should be concerned with the matter before the House today. The hon. Member for Bolton, West said that we ought not to try to anticipate the

findings of a body which had been set up to look into these other important matters. It struck me as rather odd at the time because I had referred to the Government's industrial relations policy, and I could not help recalling that it was based entirely on a document which did not wait for the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations, the Donovan Commission, but was drafted before that body reported.
I must point out that the original Bill from which this Measure derives was introduced at the same time as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) set up simultaneously the Robens Committee. I hope the House will not accuse her of trying to anticipate the conclusions of the Committee which she set up when she presented the Employed Persons (Health and Safety) Bill in 1970. If this was a valid argument about one half of the original Bill, it was an equally valid argument in respect of the other half.
I said that the Under-Secretary had already deployed the same argument once before this year in rejecting the Private Members' Measure brought before the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan), but he invalidated his own case by presenting his own Bill. I welcome the fact that he did so, not only because I want to see the employment medical officer service quickly established but also because I think it weakens his argument when we debate the Measure again on 4th February—the safety part of the original Bill.
I think the hon. Member for Bolton, West rather misunderstood me on the question of departmental responsibility for either the E.M.A.S. on the one hand or the occupational health service, for which many people were pressing, including my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen), on the other hand. My hon. Friend's speech reinforced my point. His speech was not inconsistent with but complementary to my own remarks when I pointed out that the employment medical officer service as originally conceived had a limited rôle and indeed must inevitably do so. One sees that that rôle is rightly related to and will continue to be connected with the responsibilities of the Department of


Employment. But we never suggested that it is a substitute for or even an alternative to, or a pretence to be, an occupational health scheme. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton eloquently and lucidly said, an occupational health scheme is for most people something which goes a long way beyond the concept embodied in the Bill. It seems to me that it is something which not only goes beyond the scope, resources and responsibility of the Department of Employment but would involve a fundamental recasting of the National Health Service, and for that reason be a proper matter of policy and responsibility for the Department of Health and Social Security. That is what I was saying, and I gather that my thoughts on the matter were echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton.
I understood the point made by the hon. Member for Windsor (Dr. Glyn), but I do not see the service proposed under the Bill as having the resources for providing either treatment or clinical facilities. As the Title and the content of the Bill show, it is to be an advisory service. Its staff will be primarily engaged, one hopes, in research and advice to industry, in prophylactic and preventive advice, and so on.
Notwithstanding all the reservations and criticisms which have been expressed, the Under-Secretary of State can be reassured by the general welcome which his Bill has had. For all my own criticisms, I join in that welcome. I commend the Bill to the House tonight on Second Reading. We look forward to discussing the details in Committee.

9.36 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Smith: May I have the leave of the House to reply to the interesting debate which we have had? Some hon. Members have been less than enthusiastic about the Bill, and I really do not understand why. The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker), for whom I have a great personal regard, seems to be getting testy in his old age. He was very condemnatory in his opening speech, though rather more placatory in his response just now. I agreed almost entirely with what he said in winding up, though I must dissent from his observation, typical of

Opposition Front Bench exaggeration, that the House has been waiting over two years for the Bill. We have been in office for only 18 months, and we have been extremely busy in that time with a lot of important legislation. We have always regarded this as an important Measure, though not of first priority compared with such Measures as the Industrial Relations Act.
The hon. Gentleman pointed out, quite fairly, that industrial safety is not mentioned in the Bill; in other words, that we have implemented only the first part of the Labour Government's Bill. True enough. But, as he knows, my hon. Friends and I maintained in Committee on that Bill that these were two quite separate matters. For the sake of convenience, the last Administration lumped them together in one Bill, but they are two entirely separate themes. We thought it absolutely right that the subject matter of this Bill should be judged and provided for separately, and we have brought it forward in that way.
There have been a number of questions about the safety side of it, and we have been reminded that the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan), who was fortunate enough to come top in the Ballot recently has chosen this as the subject of his Private Member's Bill. We shall have an opportunity to debate it for the whole of one Friday in February, and, although we have been over the course a number of times, it will be interesting to hear the latest views on the subject. Irrespective of any arguments about it being a Private Member's Bill, it would surely be wrong at this stage, with that Measure on the horizon and coming up for debate so soon, to incorporate its subject matter in the present Bill. It is sensible for us to tackle the provision of an employment medical advisory service in this Bill in the way proposed.
I come now to the questions put to me. The hon. Member for Doncaster asked about industrial deafness and referred to the recent judgment in the High Court. I can say no more about that now. Damages were awarded, and I understand that there may well be an appeal, so to some extent the matter is sub judice. However, I can say that the subject of occupational deafness has been receiving a good deal of attention within


the Department. A special sub-committee of the Industrial Health Advisory Committee has been studying the subject, and I hope that it will shortly be making important practical recommendations.
Meanwhile, the Factory Inspectorate, which is equipped with better instrumentation than it has ever had, is carrying out field surveys of considerable importance to improve its knowledge of the subject. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are in no way complacent about things and are well aware of the implications of modern noise in industry.
The hon. Gentleman chided us for paring off some of the costs in comparison with the Bill his Administration introduced. The saving is not even mainly in staff. There has been a substantial saving in the cost of laboratory facilities, owing in part to the development of improved methods by the Department's medical laboratory and partly to a revised and more accurate estimate of the number of tests. There will be a saving of staff, and this accounts for about a third of the cash saving. But that is not simply due to a reduction of numbers. There is to be a more economical use of staff. In particular, the introduction of nurses is a change which with a proper deployment of forces we believe will be at once an economy and a strengthening of the arrangements. We do not accept that we have weakened the service by cutting it down. We should not necessarily improve its efficiency by spending more money.
Obviously as time goes on we can consider those matters and even the need for strengthening certain departments. I am sure that the Government and the Secretary of State of the day will be prepared to consider that. We believe that our provision is a sensible and worthwhile one at this stage.
I was asked who will head the Service. I am glad to say that it is expected to be headed by Dr. T. A. Lloyd Davies, the Department's distinguished Chief Medical Adviser. I am sure that the hon. Member for Doncaster knows him and knows that he is a most worthy person to undertake the task.

Mr. Harold Walker: May I express my congratulations through the hon. Gentleman

to Dr. Lloyd Davies on his appointment and wish him well in his work.

Mr. Smith: I am sure that Dr. Lloyd Davies will be grateful for those kind words.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the new Schedule and the complex cross-references. I agree with what he said, but, as he well knows, it is sometimes very difficult to draft Bills without appearing to be a little confusing. We certainly tried to meet some of the criticisms advanced in Committee on the old Bill. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that there are ways of improving it, we shall be prepared to look at his drafting, but what we did was done in an attempt to be helpful.
The hon. Gentleman hoped that the service would have an increasingly expanding rôle, and we certainly hope so. We believe that that will happen, and that is what we have set about ensuring. I believe that the staffing and the facilities will be adequate.
The service will undertake a number of surveys which could throw light on the relationship between diseases and working conditions. The cost of the work will not come out of the medical fees, which are designed merely to pay for the cost of examinations and tests. Research will be a general charge on my Department.
We heard an interesting speech from the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), who wanted to know whether it is possible to monitor new hazards before it is too late, a point we all take very seriously. That will be done. It is an advisory service, but it is also a preventative service, and the more monitoring that can be done of diseases before they take a serious or fatal hold on individuals, the more successful will be the Service.
One of the three main principles of the Service will be that it will be concerned in quite a big way with disabled people. I am not entirely satisfied with the Department's performance in regard to disabled people over a period of years, and the Department is not satisfied either. We are looking at the matter very seriously. I know of the hon. Gentleman's personal interest in the subject.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) that


works medical officers are most valuable. There will be full co-operation with them in the operation of the Bill. As he said, some works medical officers have done extremely valuable research. I think that school records will be adequate. Indeed, we intend to give those responsible full briefing in advance of the Bill coming into operation so that everyone knows his responsibility and the performances can respond accordingly.
My hon. Friend also asked where these full-time doctors would come from. A number will, we expect, be works medical officers. Some will be ex-appointed factory doctors and some of these have given more than a few hours a week, as my hon. Friend has suggested. They will not be withdrawn from the National Health Service which, on balance, as I said earlier, will I believe gain in medical time from the changes which are being instituted. I do not believe that there will be any paring back of the National Health Service as such.
The pay for the doctors will be the standard salaries for the various grades of medical civil servants. There will be a career structure which should be attractive to good men with an interest in the subject. There is already an indication, I am glad to say, that some very good applicants will be forthcoming. We have no worries about being able to staff the new service satisfactorily.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond) referred to mass radiography and tuberculosis. These are really matters for the Department of Health and the National Health Service and not really for my Department and the Employment Medical Advisory Service. But, of course, the new service will be interested in radiography where this can make a contribution to the study of occupational diseases in places such as potteries and foundries, where damage to lungs is likely to occur through exposure to dust.
I was interested in the contribution of the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins), who is a regular contributor to such debates. But if I may say so without offence, I did not think that he was quite as constructive as he usually is. He was rather more critical, as he is entitled to be. He talked of the need

to modernize the Factory Acts, and I agree. But this is what the Robens Committee is all about. I hope that we shall have some radical, comprehensive and useful recommendations early next summer from the Robens Committee. Contrary to the hon. Gentleman, I take the view that these new provisions will grapple effectively with some of the problems which are facing industry. I do not think that this is a weak, puny and ineffectual little Bill. I think that it will be very successful when it goes into operation.
The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) asked about duplication in the health services. The laboratory services for the new Employment Medical Advisory Service will be provided by its own central laboratory and by designated National Health Service laboratories. It will co-operate with the university departments, such as those at Manchester, Dundee, London and Newcastle, with the Medical Services Division of the Department of Employment and with the Factory Inspectorate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West raised the question of fees for employers. For the periodical medical examinations, the fees will be exactly as at present. The fees vary from 75p to £3·45 for examinations. There will certainly not be an additional financial burden on industry as a result of these provisions. There is no extra element of taxation here.
We heard an interesting speech from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. Owen), who is a medical man himself. I agree with some of the things he said but they were very wide of the policy we are discussing. As the hon. Member for Doncaster said, some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Sutton are really more suited for consideration by the Department of Health or, in relation to the whole question of health policy, by the Government.
The hon. Member suggested that the Bill is a pretext for not setting up an industrial medical occupational service. With all due respect, this is absolute nonsense. The Measure embodies a well thought out approach to the problem of satisfying the real needs of people in industry while avoiding any overlapping


with the facilities available under the National Health Service. Moreover, the new service will enlist the co-operation of doctors now employed in industry by employers, and I submit that the result will be a national centre of intelligence in occupational medicine which will be of help to all doctors in industry while, at the same time, advice on occupational medicine will be available to small employers and to employed persons who have never had it before. There is, therefore, a considerable advance.
The new service is not inspection-oriented, as the hon. Gentleman sought to suggest, but an advisory service which will help the employed person and the employer. It will conduct surveys of a sophisticated character in order to establish the areas where there are risks, and in this way it will be oriented towards prevention; avoiding the exposure of employed persons to serious and often hidden hazards. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, and I know his feeling and that of many other medical men about the need for a comprehensive occupational health service but again, with respect, I do not think that the Bill is the right vehicle for that and I can make it quite clear that it is not intended to be a substitution for it.
We believe, and we probably have the support of many people in saying, that this is the best form of expansion of a service of this type. It is a valuable advance. It may in some ways be a limited advance, but it is an advance which will have an impact. I do not share the pessimism of some hon. Members who have poured cold water on the proposals. I am sure that they will be extremely surprised, once the Bill is enacted and in operation, by its effectiveness. It will be a considerable advance on our present industrial health operations.
We shall certainly be very pleased in Committee to consider any Amendments put forward by hon. Members. As I said, the hon. Member for Consett had one

success before, and may have some other success again, because we believe that the Bill has the support of both sides. It is a sensible Measure, and it is appreciated by all who have at heart the best interests of industry, both employees and employers. It is a realistic Bill and one which I am sure will commend itself to the House for the fullest possible support on its way to the Statute Book.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

EMPLOYMENT MEDICAL ADVISORY SERVICE [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the establishment by the Secretary of State of an employment medical advisory service (referred to below as 'the service') and to amend the Factories Act 1961 in relation to medical arrangements and related matters, it is expedient—

(a) to authorise—

(i) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in connection with the establishment and functioning of the service or with the investigation of problems relevant to the duties of members of the service or to the safeguarding and improvement of health in relation to employment; and
(ii) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of sums received by the Secretary of State in respect of fees for medical examinations, tests and supervision con-ducted or exercised by members of the service;
(b) to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any additional sums which may become payable under the Employment and Training Act 1948 out of moneys so provided in consequence of any amendment of the Factories Act 1961 requiring a local careers office to be notified about the employment of young persons.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

SIERRA LEONE REPUBLIC BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

9.54 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a short Bill and is similar to others introduced when Commonwealth countries have become republics within the Commonwealth. It is a technical Measure and cannot, I think, be regarded in any way as controversial. It has already been considered in another place.
Sierra Leone became a republic within the Commonwealth on 19th April, 1971, immediately after the required legislation had been passed by the Sierra Leone Parliament. The purpose of the Bill is to make adjustments in our law which such a constitutional change necessitates. It follows the earlier precedents, and provides that the law of the United Kingdom, the law of the Channel Islands and the law of the Isle of Man in so far as they relate to Sierra Leone will not be affected by the fact that Sierra Leone is now a republic. The Bill will only affect the Law of Dependent Territories of the United Kingdom so far as it affects Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament extending to them and Orders in Council applying such Acts.
The Bill also makes the necessary provision to enable Her Majesty in Council and thus the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to continue to exercise jurisdiction to hear any appeals which were pending immediately before Sierra Leone became a republic. It excludes all appeals from decisions given by a court or judge in Sierra Leone after that date.
In the past months, Sierra Leone has experienced some difficulties, but now seems to be settling down. I am glad that she has decided to stay in the Commonwealth. As President Stevens said in a special tribute to the United Kingdom at the time that the republic was proclaimed, Sierra Leone has had links with us for more than a century. The President has emphasised that his Government gladly acknowledge the Queen's unique position as head of the Commonwealth.
I am sure that lion. Members will join me in sending to the President, the Government and the people of Sierra Leone our best wishes for their future progress and prosperity.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Foley: I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said. We on this side of the House are glad to support the Bill. It is narrow in its scope, legally and technically. Nevertheless it brings our legislation into line with that of Sierra Leone after its decision to become a republic.
As the Minister said, our links with Sierra Leone date back over 100 years. The university in the county in which I was born, Durham, has had links for nearly 110 years with Sierra Leone. In those very early days, next to Liberia, Sierra Leone was the place where slaves were first resettled. Over all these years the close links established between Britain and Sierra Leone show themselves in the countless numbers of people who have been trained in this country in terms of further education and for legal qualifications and scientific, agricultural and arts degrees. Equally there are countless people in this country who, and whose parents, gave great service in Sierra Leone in the colonial days as administrators or by working there and establishing business enterprises and helping to get the economy on its feet.
I am especially pleased to be associated with the Bill. The President of Sierra Leone is a personal friend of mine. He is one of those unique men who have emerged in African politics by serving their apprenticeship in the trade union movement, like so many hon. Members on this side of the House, my self included. It was the British Labour movement which gave him the opportunity to go to Ruskin College, where he spent two years improving him self and fitting himself for his rôle as future leader and President of his country.
It is a country which is part of the developing world. Therefore there are contradictions in terms of economic growth and social progress. There are pressures, tensions and considerable unemployment. Nevertheless, it is an independent nation. It has decided to stay in the Commonwealth while becoming a republic, and to accept the Queen as head of the Commonwealth.
We send the President and all the people of Sierra Leone our good wishes for their future.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Harold Soref: While in no way wishing to contradict the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who said that this was not a controversial Bill, I suggest that the subject of Sierra Leone is a controversial matter because in Commonwealth Africa there is probably no other regime outside Zanzibar which has a more cruel administration in recent times. In recording that it is the last ex-British African colony to retain the British monarch as Head of State, I also recall that under the Constitution this was the price paid for independence. Recently there have been detention of leading politicians, treason trials and executions, two governors-general have been sacked, eight coups have taken place since 1967, there have been two Presidents within two days—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Sierra Leone Republic Bill [Lords] and the Island of Rockall Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Anthony Royle.]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Soref: In the recent history of Sierra Leone which has resulted in Mr. Stevens bringing in Marxist revolutionaries—

Mr. Foley: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to depart so far from the terms of reference of the Bill and to enter into the internal affairs of a friendly national in this way?

Mr. Speaker: On the Second Reading of a Bill it is difficult for the Chair to be unduly restrictive. Nevertheless the Chair would hope that the discussion would be fairly limited.

Mr. Soref: I suggest that the introduction of alien Communist troops from Guinea into a Commonwealth country is hardly a friendly action. The result has been that none of the armed forces or the

police of Sierra Leone is armed. The only people who have ammunition are the alien Guinean troops.

Mr. Foley: I do not know when the hon. Gentleman was last in Sierre Leone. I was there less than two months ago and I can assure him that both the police and the Army who I met—they were not Guinean troops—were armed.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would ask the hon. Member to be slightly careful about this. He indicated that he did not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill and he must not introduce rather extraneous affairs.

Mr. Soref: In supporting the Bill it is necessary to have a realisation of what is happening. I believe that if this were a white administration in Africa there would be a very different appreciation of the situation. The fact remains that large numbers of politicians who were loyal to the British Monarch were incarcerated by Mr. Stevens and the gaol became known as the "Queen's Hotel".
We have heard something about the economy of the country, the illicit diamond dealings, the nationalisation of the Sierra Leone Diamond Mining Company—and it must be remembered that 10 per cent. of the world's diamonds are produced there. Employment and the economy generally are running down and I suggest that this is largely due to this administration and to the fact that it is run by a dictator in consort with Guinea, which is contrary to the interests of this country and to the interests of the majority of the inhabitations of Sierra Leone. I for one do not regard it as a friendly country.
I also believe that when Mr. Stevens said that Sierra Leone and Guinea have become one, as he did, that that is further evidence of the political alienation of the country which has a precedent in the actions of Nkrumah in Ghana. It is my belief that the future will show that Sierra Leone and Guinea will be the bridgehead for an increasing and dangerous concert of Communist powers on the West Coast of Africa. The port of Freetown which was so vital during the last war could easily become vulnerable and that could produce a situation contrary to British interests. For those reasons I raise my voice, because these


apprehensions should be voiced, and I cannot rejoice in the farce of welcoming a republic which has a connotation contrary to British interests, to British policy, and, above all, contrary to the interests of the average citizen.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: I heard most of the speech of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Soref). I have no intention of indulging in controversy, but at Question Time a few days ago I characterised such stuff by the hon. Gentleman as "Fascist piffle". I think that is all it deserves.
I wish to add my good wishes and felicitations to this young developing State in West Africa. This is more than a pleasure; it gives me immense satisfaction as Member for Kingston upon Hull, West, where one of my predecessors was William Wilberforce. Although this is a legal and technical Bill, I should like to say a few words. They will be almost sentimental, because Wilberforce Museum, in Hull, is a place of pilgrimage for men of West Africa. Fourah Bay College is known as the Athens of West Africa to which went, as students and lecturers many years ago, people like Dr. Azikwe of Lagos, with whom I have long connections, going back to his trade union days, when Richard Acland and myself were involved in an effort to get piped water, in 1952, for the iron ore workers at Malimba.
No one, least of all myself, could have walked up the steps in Freetown Harbour without thinking of the countless slaves who had trodden them in chains in the past. We have, not a heritage, but a legacy in this matter. I thought how little we could do, Colonial Development Corporations or no, to make up for what happened in those days long gone.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley), I have known Siaka Stevens a long time. He has had his ups and downs. He is a Commonwealth man. So am I. I hope that we all are, despite what we have just heard from the hon. Member for Ormskirk. We welcome him to our family in the Commonwealth and wish him long life. As with many other African States, the military men and the officers stand on the political sideline. They are

dangerous men. At first the officers did not allow him to become President, although he had been elected through the ballot box, but then the sergeant majors and N.C.O.s put him in power in a second coup. He was in London in exile. He never forgot us and we never forgot him. He came to the House. He was in touch with the Movement for Colonial Freedom and Lord Brockway.
Many wonderful men have been to Fourah Bay College. It has been linked with Durham University for over 100 years. The first man to receive a degree there was Nathanial Davis. There were eight licentiates in theology at the University of Durham in 1879. If I may strike a purely personal note, James McCarthy, the son of a storekeeper in Wilberforce Street, won a scholarship to the Inner Temple and graduated in 1869. Soon afterwards, he married, in a fashionable London church, Lilee Vivian, the daughter of a Hull councillor. He took her back to Freetown where, for 10 years, before she died, she graced Wilberforce Street in a most elegant house and raised the tone of West African society.
Having said that, I send, and many others will, too, best wishes to this young nation in the Commonwealth. I wish it good luck and prosperity and, more than that, peace in the years to come.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Royle: With the permission and by leave of the House I would like to say how grateful I am for the support which has been expressed this evening in the speech by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley), a speech of the usual high calibre which we expect from him and for which the Government are grateful.
I should also like to thank the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston upon Hull West (Mr. James Johnson) for his few words. Though I must confess I cannot give any further information or detail about the activities of Lily Vivian, I very much appreciated the comments he made.
I was sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Soref) perhaps introduced a certain note of controversy into the debate tonight. This


is a moment when we should wish Sierra Leone well. My hon. Friend mentioned the influence of Guinea in Sierra Leone. I think we really must accept that Sierra Leone is a soverign independent State. The presence of Guinean troops in Sierra Leone at the request of the Sierra Leoneian Government is solely the responsibility of that Government. I understand, and my hon. Friend will be interested to know, that in fact a good many of the troops have now returned to Guinea. My hon. Friend mentioned also the treason trials and the defendants convicted at the trials which took place last year on charges arising out of the 1967 coup. All the defendants have now had their convictions and sentences set aside on appeal, and seven have been released. The remainder are still held in detention

under emergency regulations at present in force.
I am sure my hon. Friend would wish to know that British interests in Sierra Leone have not been adversely affected by the country's constitutional change. I have no reason to believe that they will be affected in the foreseeable future.
Sierra Leone has now embarked on a new phase in her life as a sovereign independent State, and I should like to reaffirm our good wishes on behalf of this House to President Stevens and to his Government and to the people of Sierra Leone.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Clegg.]

Committee tomorrow.

ISLAND OF ROCKALL BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read

10.12 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am glad to say at this hour of the evening that the Bill which I ask the House to approve is a mercifully short and uncomplicated piece of legislation, and so I may be fairly brief in my remarks. The purpose of the Bill is to incorporate the Island of Rockall in the United Kingdom, more specifically.
into that part of the United Kingdom known as Scotland".
I do not imagine that there are many Members in this House tonight who have seen the Island of Rockall. There may be some, and I hope that if there are we may hear from them. In the words which you yourself, Mr. Speaker, use when you report to us at the beginning of every Session that the Queen has made a speech opening it and you say that for the sake of greater accuracy you have obtained a copy, I would say that I think it may be helpful to the House tonight if I represent Rockall in every way by bringing into the House a part of Rockall so the House may know what it is we are talking about.
As the House probably knows, the Island of Rockall, which is situated some 200 miles west-north-west of Barra Head in the Hebrides, was annexed on behalf of the Crown in 1955. The effect of this annexation which was carried out by a naval landing party from H.M.S. Vidal acting under instructions contained in a Royal Warrant dated 14th September, 1955, was to make the island part of Her Majesty's dominions.
The island, however, does not at present form part of the United Kingdom and is not subject to any administrative or legal system. I am sure the House will agree that this is not a wholly satisfactory situation. The Government have therefore concluded that the time has come to make Rockall an integral part of the United Kingdom, subject to the jurisdiction of our courts—and I am glad

to have beside me tonight my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate—and this is what the Bill does.
To deal with the matter in practical terms, the Bill will have the immediate effect of bringing Rockall within the scope of any legislation enacted by Parliament which applies to Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole. Once the island is incorporated in the United Kingdom, it will become subject to the provisions of the Fishery Limits Act, 1964. It will also he possible for an Order in Council to be made under the Continental Shelf Act, 1964, should my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in due course consider it desirable to designate this area for purposes of exploration and exploitation.
Perhaps, in even more practical form, the Government are mindful of the fact that Rockall and its adjacent reefs present a hazard to shipping in its waters and steps have already been taken to establish a navigational light on the island. I am glad to tell the House that this work will be completed next year as soon as weather conditions in that area permit, because it is well known that weather conditions in that area are not always particularly kind. With that explanation, I hope that the House will accept the need for this small but nevertheless useful Measure.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: I welcome the Bill. It would appear to be correct that a Bill should be passed to formalise the claim of Scotland to the Island of Rockall. I would not altogether agree with the history of the matter put forward by the Minister. If he goes to the Western Isles and perhaps to the pubs there, he will find there has been a continuing claim that the Island of Rockall and the banks adjacent to it are Scottish and always have been—ever since the Battle of Largs when the Western Isles as a whole were taken from the Norsemen. That is a claim I would not depart from, but the material significance of the formal annexation of Rockall to the United Kingdom has been hinted at by the Government Front Bench spokesman.
Clearly, it is important that our fishery limits should be established in face of entry into the Common Market. Indeed, the Government should take note that


Rockall is inhabited entirely by in-shore fishermen—the birds that live there! The claim to any undersea minerals that may lie there is very important. It may take the limits far beyond the limits which appear to have been agreed in the Common Market negotiations at the weekend. For all these reasons, this is a very important piece of land.
I am glad to note that the Government are prepared to put a light on the island to warn shipping. At this point I wonder whether the Bill goes far enough. It claims to apply the law of Scotland to Rockall, but I have always understood that the law of Scotland and the United Kingdom was that lighthouses in Scottish waters come under Section 634 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, under the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses. I was astonished to discover on 29th November the following Written Answer by the Department of Trade and Industry to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond).
The right hon. Gentleman
asked … what organisation will be responsible for the lighthouse on the Scottish island of Rockall.
The Minister replied:
By arrangement with the Commissioners of Nortnern Lighthouses and Trinity House, the navigational light on the Island of Rockall will be installed and maintained by Her Majesty's Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1971; Vol. 827, c. 16.]
Under what legal authority is it proposed to carry out this necessary function? While I welcome the putting of the light on the island of Rockall, I would like to know if the Government are in order in seeking to administer and install it. Is it not the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses who should carry out this difficult and dangerous task?

10.21 p.m.

Mr. Laurance Reed: I have never landed on Rockall, but I have seen it. Those who sail in the vicinity of this rock are advised by the Admiralty Pilot to navigate with care because of a local magnetic anomaly. It seems, however, that this is not the only anomaly associated with the rock. Six months ago I put a Question to the Prime Minister asking him to pay a visit to Rockall with a view to substantiating our sovereignty to the area. He answered in the negative

and said that Her Majesty's sovereignty over Rockall was not in dispute. Why, then does it become necessary, a few months later, for the Government to produce a Bill putting our claim to this area beyond dispute?
Another oddity about this Measure is that Rockall is described as the "Island of Rockall", whereas normally it is called "Rockall", occasionally "Rockall islet" and even more occasionally "the sea rock of Roaring". But the use of the term "island" gives us a clue to the reasons why the Government have produced the Bill.
The first recorded landing on this rock was achieved in 1811, and since we took formal possession of this islet in 1955 there has been no dispute whatever as to the sovereignty over it. However, in dispute is whether our possession of this rock gives us exclusive rights to explore and exploit the resources of the seabed in the submarine areas adjacent to it as determined by the Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf, 1958. That Convention states explicity in Article 1(b) that the conditions of the Covention extend to submarine areas adjacent to the coasts of islands. No mention is made, however, of rocks, islets or reefs. Thus, by calling it an island and by attaching it firmly to the United Kingdom, the Government hope to put beyond dispute our claim to the sea bed in the area.
If this legal stratagem works, we shall have possession not simply of a fastness 70 ft. high and 80 ft. round at the base but control of not less than 150,000 square miles of the sea floor that would otherwise belong to the Republic of Ireland, Iceland and Denmark. This area of the sea floor is of military significance and is also of oil-bearing potential.
But the ramifications of this little Bill go far beyond that. This country is still in possession of a large number of islands dotted around the world's oceans. In the Atlantic Ocean they include Bermuda, the Leeward and Windward Islands, Cayman, Turks and Caicos, Ascension, St. Helena, Tristan Da Cunha, Inaccessible, Nightingale, Gough Island, Falkland Islands, South Georgia, South Sandwich, South Orkneys and South Shetland.
In the Indian Ocean we have the Seychelles Group, Aldabara, Farquhar,


Des Roches and the Chagos Archipelago. In the Pacific we have the Gilbert and Ellice Group, Ocean Island, Phoenix Island, Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie, Oeno, Starbuck, Malden, Vostock, Caroline, Flint, Fanning, Washington, the Christmas Islands. Christmas is coming, so will not also enumerate the myriads of islets, reefs, atolls and rocks that are also under our control.
The point is that with this Bill we are in danger of setting a precedent; and thereby asserting the right to control an area of the sea floor which is equal in extent to about 12 million square miles, which is exactly equal to the size of the British Empire at its height.

Mr. Eric Ogden: "Wider still, and wider."

Mr. Reed: I congratulate the Government on this new expansionist policy, but I wonder whether this is the wisest way of attempting to divide up the ownership and management of the marine environment. Some hon. Members may have noticed that mention was made in the Gracious Speech of the International Law of the Sea Conference in 1973. One of the objectives of that conference is to discuss these problems and, in particular, whether rights should attach to oceanic islands, in the same way that they do to countries with very long seaboards, in relation to exploitation of the Continental Shelf and the sea floor beyond it. Perhaps the time is now opportune for the Leader of the House to give time for a thorough debate of the Government's policy on this matter, instead of springing a major new policy on us in a two-Clause Bill in the middle of the night.
I dare say that if I enlarged on the argument about how we should manage and exploit the sea floor and the world oceans I should be ruled out of order very quickly, but it is not difficult to demonstrate that it would not be in the national interest to pursue the policy that appears to emanate from the Bill because France, for example, would do rather better than the United Kingdom. But I hope that before we conclude the debate I shall have a clear undertaking from my hon. Friend that Rockall and the Bill are an exception, and that what we have agreed to do about this particular

rock will in no way compromise or prejudice the negotiations that are to be held at the International Law of the Sea Conference in 1973.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: When an English Member interferes or intervenes in a matter which at first sight might seem to be solely concerned with Scotland, he should either seek the leave of the House or the protection of the Chair. When the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed) intervened he was greeted with some noise from the Scottish magnates on the Government Front Bench. I should not like to say whether that was encouragement or discouragement, but he showed an independent spirit. I shall be less lengthy than he was, though I support what he said. The Under-Secretary asked if anyone had seen the Island of Rockall. I saw it in rather exceptional circumstances. It was during my first service at sea back in 1942 when I went from Lancashire to join a ship of the Glen Line out of Glasgow. By some strange chance we got rather near to Rockall. At that time I had left home with a fairly good Lancashire accent, but when I came back after six months at sea with a wholly Scots crew my parents could not understand a word I was talking about. That is my excuse for joining in the debate.
I ask two questions. The "Island of Rockall" is the phrase used. I hope that this term in legal language means not only that part of the island above the water at normal tide but that part which extends 100 fathoms deep, because it is that part of the sea bed which is of real interest to us, the value and wealth of the Continental Shelf, which we should be able to exploit.
I am delighted that a navigation light is to appear on the island. I take it that it will not be contracted out to Wimpey—possibly Laing, or, more likely, Sir Robert McAlpine, will be doing the work.
The main object is not only to secure the island but the sea bed is to be incorporated into the United Kingdom. I thank Scottish Members for their forbearance.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: This is by no means the least important of today's many debates. The hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed) pointed out that the Bill, though small, was not quite so uncomplicated as it might seem. Incidentally, I consider this to be a reasonable hour for us to be considering business that is so closely related to Scotland. Usually we are relegated to the middle of the night, but we never worry about that because if we are interested we are here.
I trust that the Bill's importance is such that it will not be relegated to the Scottish Standing Committee. I shall be disappointed if, when the Bill receives its Second Reading, the Government Whip does not move that it be considered by a Committee of the whole House.
The Under-Secretary is lucky in that the important task of moving the Second Reading of the Bill has fallen to him. The hon. Gentleman is straight back from his failures in Brussels. Having given away the fishing industry of Scotland, he is now annexing a hitherto seemingly unimportant part of the Atlantic Ocean. During the speech of the hon. Member for Bolton, East, we were reminded of the phrase—
Wider still and wider shall thy bounds be set".
That almost used to be the Tory Party's theme song. What was Pomp and Circumstance is better known today as "Pompidou and Circumstance".
I am glad that the Under-Secretary brought with him a sample of Rockall, but he did not tell us what it was. There is a certain measure of doubt about what it was. For a long time it was called "Rockallite". Then a later expedition discovered that it was something else. The first sample, which was brought back by the French expedition, was different from what was available when James Fisher brought back his 21-lb. sample from the area.
We are delighted that a navigational light is to be placed on the island. It has taken a long time to get this done. About 70 years ago a Clyde-built Scandinavian ship—the "Norge"—was wrecked there with the loss of 80 lives. Even at that time a gentleman whose name is not unknown in relation to lighthouses—

Stevenson—suggested that an automatic light should be put there. That suggestion was turned down because of the difficulties of maintenance.
If this island was annexed to the Crown by formal commission of Her Majesty when the aptly named H.M.S. "Vidal" went there in all formality in 1955 under Commander Connell, the obvious question to ask is: why now? We all know why it was done at that time. This started in about July, 1955, when a very distinguished Minister of Defence, whose name was Selwyn Lloyd, presently Mr. Speaker, announced that there was to be sited on South Uist an experimental missile station. The feeling was that it would be appropriate and advisable and would save us from any possible embarrassment of claims from someone else if we took this over to prevent anyone else putting any monitoring devices upon Rockall.
I do not think that even at that time there was much talk of it as an island; it was still just a rock. But it has grown in importance since that time. I should like to know why for all this time we did not require to take any action to incorporate it, to subject it to some legal system and annex it to the District of Harris in the County of Inverness. If we had waited a year or two, there would probably be no District of Harris, and I doubt whether the County of Inverness as a unit will remain because we are going to have considerable local government reform, and even reform in relation to shrieval divisions of Scotland as well. So why this lapse of time?
Is it true that it was some university student who was doing some digging and found that here was a part of the United Kingdom which was not subject to any legal or administrative system? It would be very interesting to know what prompted this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) mentioned the traditions of the Western Isles. They probably had some contact with events around that part of the world, although they go pretty far back. After all, Rockall is just a speck in the ocean, probably about the loneliest of lonely spots. I do not know whether it is true that we have decided to take it on. because we realised that within 10 years we would make some drastic changes in


relation to our fishery waters and that in 10 years we shall have developed this new fishery area under the protection of legislation that has been presently mentioned—the Fishery Limits Act—which is going to apply there.
This is the last sea-eroded relic of a submerged mountainous island, part of the ancient barrier lands between the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans, and even geomophorgraphically it is not related to Britain but rather to the Arctic lands.

Mr. Laurance Reed: I think that is not the case. Rockall is part of the European Continental Shelf, and so is Greenland. It broke away millions of years ago as a result of the continental shift, but in the process of the drift Rockall got left behind between Greenland and Scotland.

Mr. Ross: I am not so sure about that, but certainly the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that it is part of the barrier lands between the oceans.
It even eluded cartographers for centuries. It was so like a sailing ship by its very configuration, because it is just a peak tipped over out of the sea that it must have been as elusive to seamen as the "Flying Dutchman". They say it, and then they did not see it. And even when the first landing party got there—I think that my hon. and learned Friend will bear me out—they quickly lost their ship, and they had to turn back when they thought they were on the way to their ship. That was back in 1811. Incidentally, it is right that Rockall should be annexed to Scotland if only because the man in command of that landing party was a Scotsman who came from Edinburgh.
We had better find out whether anyone else wants Rockall, if it proves to be as valuable as has been suggested. We might discover that the French have a claim. They knew about it; they were probably the first people to put it reasonably close to its real position on the map. It was not. I think, till about 1745 that a Captain Coats, travelling between Hudson's Bay and Britain, reasonably accurately fixed it.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: My right hon. Friend is being less than fair to the Norsemen. In their earliest maps of the North Atlantic, the Norsemen marked a

large area called Friesland, which meant a low area of shoals. There is not much doubt that that was the Rockall shoal.

Mr. Ross: I think that there is considerable doubt. Going further back, it may be that the Irish have a claim through St. Brendan, who was said in legend at least to have landed there. We are in trouble when we go back as far as that. The first landing without doubt was in 1811—unless the Spanish and French sailors who arrived in St. Kilda back in the 1680s had themselves landed there.
It is not really an island. There is more than one rock. There is the Hassel-wood rock as well, which is just about a cable's length from the rock hitherto known as Rockall. It has always been dangerous to shipping, to whalers and trawlers. I hope that we do not run into trouble. It may be that the Faroes think that they have traditional fishing rights there, and many other people, too.
A survey was made in 1831 by H.M.S. "Pike", commanded by the man whose name is commemorated in the ship which did the final helicopter landing and claimed the island for Britain—Captain Alexander Thomas Vidal. That was the first complete survey, in 1831, and we can appreciate the importance of it. It is not just a rock. It is part of a shoal, and that shoal is the shallowest part of a much larger Continental Shelf area. There is a shallow bank stretching 280 miles long, 100 miles broad at the northern end, tapering and curving away, with depths of 200 fathoms or less; and the northern half, an irregular oblong, is shallower, at 100 fathoms or less. So we have there a truly Continental Shelf 100 miles long and 50 miles broad.
So the hon. Member for Bolton, East is quite right. The definition is important, and I hope that the Lord Advocate will help us with the definition of Continental Shelf. We shall have no sovereignty over that part itself, but we do have rights through international agreement if this island is ours and we measure the Continental Shelf from there. We have our rights in relation to the exploration and exploitation of the sea bed over a considerable part of the ocean. Is that why we are formally annexing it and applying certain administrative procedures to it?
There is nothing on Rockall except birds. More people have landed on the


moon than have landed on Rockall from the sea. The people who landed in 1955 to annex it landed by helicopter. One or two have landed since by helicopter to replace the Union Jack and see whether the plaque which was put up is all right.
What about the Irish? Have they a claim to it? It is not all that far from Ireland. I reckon it is nearer Londonderry and the Bloody Foreland than it is part of the mainland of Scotland. We may well have trouble in controlling the area.
Just before we came to this Bill we recognised the freedom of Sierra Leone and made it a republic. No doubt one day we shall have the Republic of Rockall Bill.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Hector Monro): And we shall make the right hon. Gentleman President.

Mr. Ross: I hope that the first visit by a Scottish Minister will be by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Monro: I have been there.

Mr. Ross: I know. That is why this is being done. I can see the hon. Gentleman's influence.
It is a pretty dangerous reef. There are submerged rocks for many miles. Now that we have responsibility for it we must accept responsibility for safety. Will that involve us merely in putting one light on Rockall? It will not always be easy to see that warning light.
What flag will be flown? I understand that the Minister of State said in another place that the Government are considering whether it should be the Saltire instead of the Union Jack. Something as important as that should be announced in this House.
It is said that it was because the Scottish Office was anxious to have a place where there was no unemployment, and somewhere that the Prime Minister could visit without meeting a protesting delegation, that it decided that it had to annex Rockall.
Have we any other territorial claims to make in the Atlantic? We may well be starting out on something of greater importance than we imagined. We have going through the House the Mineral

Exploration Bill, under which the Government have set aside about £35 million to meet part of the cost of initial surveys and exploration of not just areas of land but the seabed as well. The Minister for Industry told us on Second Reading that that included exploration of the Continental Shelf. Does that mean that this part of the Continental Shelf from this part of the United Kingdom could be included?
We must appreciate that we are only at the start of the exploration and possible exploitation of the seabed. There is evidence of considerable interest in developing the techniques of extraction of metals and their exploitation, and the exploration that precedes the exploitation.
Was the Mineral Exploration Bill drafted in order to cover the Continental Shelf and all its possibilities? If that is so, one begins to understand why, six years and more after the formal annexation, we are getting this Bill giving us some legal control over the rock and that area. Has the hon. Gentleman been in communication with the Faroes, with Iceland or with Ireland over this matter? How does he see it developing? The Continental Shelf is where the waterline is 200 metres deep, and goes even further. We are only at the frontiers of knowledge about sea bed exploration. The Institute of Geological Science, according to the Government, is actively engaged on a geological survey of the whole Continental Shelf. Does that include the Continental Shelf around Rockall? These are very important matters.

Mr. Laurance Reed: There has already been a university expedition there, and there is sizable evidence of important oil-bearing strata.

Mr. Ross: That is interesting to know. We should be put in the picture about this important thing that is happening to Scotland. Why does the Bill use the phrase
… that part of the United Kingdom known as Scotland …"?
There was a Scotland before there was a United Kingdom. The noble Lady the Minister of State suggested that the words were used because they were in the Act of Union. She used the unhappy expression that they had been "hallowed" by being used in the Act of Union. That is not a sentiment which will find an echo


in many parts of Scotland. I hope we shall be given tonight a far better reason for the use of these words. I hope the Government will look with favour on possible Amendments in the Committee stage, which, for a Measure of constitutional importance, must be on the Floor of the House.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: By leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I will reply to the debate.
The meanderings of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) through history were most interesting, and I congratulate him on the knowledge he has shown, which is almost as great as mine. I commend it to anyone. It is easily obtainable by a few hours study of a book entitled "Rockall" by James Fisher. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the hours he has spent reading it.

Mr. Ross: There are more books than that on the subject, and I have read them all. My disappointment came when I discovered that the Encyclopaedia Britannica and the Gazetteer do not mention it.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will put that right by approaching the editors.
The right hon Gentleman asked why we are doing this now. I ask him, why not? His Government had the opportunity, but it was one of their many omissions. They could have done it, but did not.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: The right hon. Gentleman was giving precedence to the Hunter Report.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman was so taken up with study of that little book that all else was excluded from his mind. I am glad that we have now given him the opportunity to study something else.
One of the things the Bill introduces is the exploration of the Continental Shelf and Rockall. I thought I had made that clear already. The right hon. Gentleman asked about various distances. When he was referring to the Gazetteer and the Encyclopaedia Brittanica he might have carried his studies that little bit

further and done a little more measurement. He would then not have had to ask me. Greenland is more than 1,000 miles from Rockall. Iceland is 402 miles from Rockall, and the Faroes 322. The Bloody Foreland, which I hope the right hon. Gentleman has visited, as I and my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) have, is 226 miles from Rockall. The nearest part of the Western Isles. Barra Head, is 200 miles away, and Rockall is 165 miles west—

Mr. Ross: My question had nothing to do with distances. I asked whether Iceland and the Faroes had traditional fishing rights.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman asked what were the nearest points to Rockall, but when I give him the information in typically ungrateful way, he refuses to acknowledge it. The 1964 Fishery Limits Act will apply to Rockall, and so far no historical fishing rights have been established.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the use of the words
… that part of the United Kingdom known as Scotland…
As he knows perfectly well, this is entirely customary use, and if they do not give the correct description, I do not know what does. I believe that the description is hallowed, and properly hallowed, in the Act of Union, and I am proud to use it. I would not be at all surprised if it were not used in some of the legislation for which the right hon. Gentleman was responsinble when in office.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we would consider putting lights on other rocks there. We do not propose to do so, because most of the other rocks are at some part of the tide, covered by water and the fixing of lights on them would be extremely difficult. We believe that with the tremendous prominence of the rock—and the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) may bear me out—the light there will be very obvious to mariners in an area where they would not expect to see a light. They will thus know where they are and will steer very clear of the island.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to recent discussions in Brussels about fishing, but his reference to the sixth century


St. Brenda and the rock is about as apocryphal as the interpretation he sought to put on the very successful results of the negotiations. If he were more in touch with Scotland and its fishing industry than with the history and background of Rockall he would be here with a very different story.
I assure the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) that the only fishermen of Rockall, being birds, are not subject to the 1964 Act. The hon. and learned Gentleman was quite correct in saying that in the normal course the responsibility for the maintaining of lights in Scottish waters rests with the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses, but I am glad to be able to tell him that the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act do not preclude the Crown from establishing and maintaining a light in these waters.
Taking the matter one stage further, the arrangement which has been made about the fixing the maintenance of the light being the responsibility of the Government has been done with the full agreement of the Commissioners for Northern Lighthouses and Trinity House. I am glad to have sitting beside me my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, who is one of the Commissioners, and he will confirm that this has been arranged by agreement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed) raised a number of interesting points about the Continental Shelf, how it applies to the law of Rockall, and how he sees it working. Of course, the sovereignty of the island of Rockall has never been in doubt, and certainly it is not in doubt now. The Bill is purely a domestic Measure designed to bring the island under United Kingdom law. Rockall is an island, of course, and what we are proposing is nothing dramatic or new. It is a natural development from the annexation which took place in 1955.
As for the international implications, there is no doubt that Rockall and its Continental Shelf fall within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. We shall stand by the limits laid down, either as they exist under the 1958 Continental Shelf Convention or as they may be

decided at the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference in 1973. My hon. Friend raised a number of important issues which lead up to the Law of the Sea Conference, and I assure him that we take the Conference very seriously. It is a very important one for Britain, as it is for other nations, and we intend to play a full part in it and the preparations for it.
I hope that I have managed to reply adequately to the debate. This is a small Bill but, as the right hon. Gentleman said, an important one. I am glad to be associated with it.

Mr. Ross: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, is he in a position to give the House any further information about what was suggested in another place with regard to the flag?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Our flag is the flag of the United Kingdom, which is the Union Jack. That is the flag which is used, as Rockall is part of the United Kingdom.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

Committee tomorrow.

RATE SUPPORT GRANTS

11.5 p.m.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I beg to move,
That the Rate Support Grant (Increase) (No. 1) Order 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th November, be approved.
It might be for the convenience of the House if we also discussed the second order:
That the Rate Support Grant (Increase) (No. 2) Order 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th November, be approved.
The Local Government Act, 1966, requires these orders to be accompanied by explanatory reports, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The reports were printed as House of Commons Papers Nos. 21 and 22, duly laid before the House at the same time as the orders.
A year ago we debated the Rate Support Grant Order, 1970, which fixed the amount of grant for 1971–72 and 1972–73. That debate provided a useful opportunity for a wide-ranging review of local authority activities. Under the 1966 Act, the main grant settlement is made every two years. This is an "off year" and our discussions are confined to the increase orders which are made to take account of increases in prices, costs and remuneration since last year. That is as far as they go.
The main grant settlement is based on expenditure reflecting the levels of prices, costs and remuneration then current. To prevent the value of the grants being eroded by subsequent unforeseen rises in the level of prices, costs and remuneration, my right hon. Friend is empowered to increase the grant if it appears to him that the effects of those rises in prices, costs and remuneration on relevant expenditure by local authorities is substantial. There are, however, no powers in the Local Government Act, 1966, to vary grant settlements to take account of increases or decreases in local authority expenditure resulting from policy decisions of either central or local Government.
Such variations can only be considered if this is provided for in other legislation. In the case of Order No. 2 such provision has been made to take account of policy changes introduced by the Courts Act and the Education (Milk) Act. The powers of the Secretary of State in connection with increase orders are very narrow. The only options open to him are either to make an increase order taking into account all changes in prices, costs and remuneration, and the increases which he is directed by Statute to take into account, or to decline to make an order at all. He could decline to make an order as did the previous Government in 1968 as part of their post-devaluation policy.
Apart from 1968, increase orders have been made in each year since the rate support grant was introduced. However, and I say this with some regret, this is the first time the House has been invited to approve two such orders at the same time covering three separate financial years and one of them covering a third increase. Dealing with No. 1 Order, this is the third increase provided for the year

1970–71, the grant for which was originally settled in 1968, increased in 1969 and 1970 and is now being increased for a certain period of 1970–71.
Perhaps hon. Members may feel that this procedure is somewhat cumbersome. The original intention was sound enough in the 1966 Act—to give authorities advance notice of the amount of grant they would receive and the level of expenditure that the Government considered appropriate for at least two years ahead, expressed in real constant price terms and to provide a safeguard against rising prices. But in practice both central and local government have found this system a little too inflexible and thus, in a Green Paper which has been issued by the Government—The Future Shape of Local Government Finance—we have suggested there might be an annual settlement covering three years, the grant for the first year being fixed and that for the two subsequent years being provisional. However, on this occasion and for the present we must administer the law as it is. The No. 1 Order, covering 1970/71, takes account of pay and price movements in the five months November 1970 to March 1971, a previous increase order having dealt with movements up to November 1970, the financial year not ending until 1971.
There were two substantial pay awards, the largest in the case of the police, between November 1970 and March 1971. The House would not wish me to go through all the figures because they are clearly set out in the House of Commons papers and the orders. Suffice it to say that there is an increase for that period of £7 million in the rate support grant in the year 1970/71, all of which is allocated to the needs element.
The No. 2 Order covers the years 1971/72 and 1972/73. Again, I will not go into the figures in detail. They are set out clearly in House of Commons Paper, No. 22. Perhaps the only thing I ought to mention specifically is the statement in the appendix which shows an offsetting saving in respect of the Courts Act and the Education (Milk) Act. These work out as £21·9 million in 1971/72 and £39·2 million in 1972/73. The savings under the Courts Act arise from the transfer of responsibility for certain higher courts and for legal aid in criminal cases from local authorities. The


saving under the Education (Milk) Act relates to the reduction in free school milk from this autumn.
This recognition of the financial effect of a significant change in local authority responsibilities can, of course, work both ways. On a previous occasion where the responsibilities were increased—I am thinking of the Children and Young Persons Act in 1969—there was a specific provision that the cost should be recognised and that was done in the 1970 increase order. The final result of the No. 2 Order is that, allowing for all the figures set out in House of Commons Paper No. 22, the rate support grant is increased by £152 million for 1971–72 and £187 million for 1972–73.
It is estimated that the increase in expenditure will require an increase of £18 million in the first of these years and £20 million in the second, an increase in the resources element. The rest of the increase in grant is added to the needs element.
Many of the detailed estimates of the effects of pay and price increases to which I have referred are based on figures collected by local authority associations and by the Greater London Council. Other estimates are made by the Departments concerned. Much of this work must be done at very short notice. For example, it was possible to include the effects of the pay award for teachers in colleges of further education which was announced as late as 20th October. But it has not been possible to include the recent pay award to manual workers which was made only on 1st December, after these orders had been laid. The effects can be provided for in a subsequent increase order, and the local authority associations have suggested that they may wish to seek an order in the spring so that authorities do not have to carry the full effect of the award for a complete year. To alter the established annual cycle would be extremely difficult, but the Secretary of State will consider any proposals the associations may make.
On behalf of my right hon. Friend and myself, I should like to express our very sincere thanks to all those concerned who have worked out these figures and have given us the estimates. The local authority associations and the Greater

London Council have been consulted on both orders, and there is complete agreement on the details of them. I commend the orders to the House.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am glad to have the Minister's assurance that the local authority associations are happy with the detailed working arrangements in the two orders. The production of two interim orders to increase the amount of finance for local authorities is an admission by the Government of their failure to deal with rising prices; or, to put it in another way, it is an acknowledgment of the rate of inflation and its effect on ratepayers. Had the Prime Minister been accurate in his forecast that he would reduce prices "at a stroke", we should not have had these orders before us. Here we have two strokes, and that policy has still not been implemented.
Although we do not oppose the orders because we are anxious to give local authorities all the support possible, the Minister has posed for us a difficult decision in respect of the school milk situation. This is a saving to which we on these benches have considerable objection. We do not believe that we should, in an interim order or indeed in any other legislation, have proposals for Government savings to be brought about as a result of ending the school milk scheme, in view of the tremendous harm it is likely to do to school children and the intense bitterness it has caused in education circles.
I am glad that the Minister was able to say that his arrangements were flexible enough to include the £20 million extra which results from the arbitration award for teachers in colleges of further education. However, there are other substantial wage negotiations which are giving concern to local authority associations. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman's remarks on this subject amount to an offer to produce another interim increase order in the spring, which he said the local authorities would like to have. If it is, I welcome it. It is absolutely proper, in the circumstances. It is a matter of concern that local authorities are expected to finance wage increases of this substantial character, and which, I am told, in respect of, for example, the manual workers' claim, amount to


£.44½ million this year. That is a lot of money for local authorities, in their normal financing arrangements, to find without the Government producing an extra order. And this takes no account of the police claim. The police claim is still under negotiation but is likely to be a very substantial addition to the £44½ million which I have mentioned. I acknowledge, therefore, that the Minister very properly referred to this in his speech, and I hope very much that he will find it possible to help the local authorities in this way, in what is a difficult economic time for them, by producing even the fourth interim increase order which, I think, he mentioned.
I would make two or three general comments arising from the present unemployment situation and the policy of the Government and the request of the Government to the local authorities to bring forward schemes immediately to help ease the unemployment. This of course is a very important matter, of great concern to many people as unemployment is increasing. I am not quite sure what the Financial Secretary is saying, but it is obviously not worth bothering about; he does not wish to repeat it. As I say, this is a matter of concern to us as it is to all local authorities.
If local authorities do bring their schemes forward, how are they the schemes to be financed? One of the things which one would have liked to have seen in this interim order is some realistic financing arrangement to give incentive to local authorities to provide employment to people unemployed in their localities. There is no sign of such incentive in this order. As far as I can see all the Government have been doing is this: when they have asked local authorities in a crisis situation to take panic, crisis action to produce extra schemes, the Government have concentrated almost exclusively on the capital side. It ought to be said at once that it is very unlikely that the local authorities can produce capital schemes which will have any effect at all this winter, which is when the urgency of the situation ought to be recognised and dealt with. To the extent that they can, that means that again we are asking local authorities to incur debt charges at a difficult time for their ratepayers, without giving them the additional help which one

would have liked to have seen in an order of this size.
In any case, it seems to me that it is not on the capital side that the Government can implement their policy. We welcome the policy, but it is not on that side that it can have any effect. If we want to reduce the number of unemployed and get more people employed by our local authorities we have got to give local authorities more revenue assistance now so that they can take on extra personnel now to do the multiplicity of jobs which we all know need to be done by every local authority, certainly those in our big towns. It would be helpful to have a word from the Minister on whether it is the Government's policy, even if it might require an additional order, in terms of revenue to encourage local authorities to take more people on.
I was discussing this point with a construction friend in Birmingham, and I asked whether the Government's new policy had found its way through to industry. He said that the great difficulty is that although there were a number of small schemes for such things as sewers, this does not do much to ease the overall situation. It would be of marginal help to the construction industry, but one could not take, say, an unemployed toolmaker from B.S.A. and expect him to do work on a main sewer. It will be much more relevant if there is a greater increase in revenue—greater than the sort of sums envisaged in this order—to encourage local authorities to take on people to do all the jobs that ought to be done—and certainly to undertake the smaller jobs which could be carried out immediately.
I was interested to hear the suggestion that Liverpool could employ 10,000 unemployed workers immediately on road works, parts maintenance, repairs, renovations and so on. Liverpool offered to do this as a contribution to the unemployment problem if the Government, in their wisdom, would agree to pay to the Liverpool Corporation the equivalent amount of unemployment benefit these men would be drawing if left at home to do nothing at all. This idea is well worth consideration—I put it no higher than that and is certainly an interesting suggestion in easing the present difficulties.
As I drove through Birmingham this morning, I thought how filthy and littered were the streets, and surely these streets


should be tidied up. I have had complaints from constituents about the dumping of rubbish and about the deterioration of whole streets, and only this weekend I raised this matter with the town clerk. The thought occurred to me that the Government, by means of such an order as this, should be encouraging local authorities to take on workpeople to deal with this task now. This is the time—at a moment when unemployment is gaining ground—when all these jobs which have been put off for so long should be undertaken. This suggestion applies to other areas as well.
Therefore, I give a general welcome to this order, but I hope the Government will see that local authorities will not stand out too long in financing these important matters. Certainly my colleagues and I will support the Minister if he comes forward with imaginative ideas on how to use these Rate Support Grant (Increase) Orders to give local authorities a positive incentive to take on more labour to do the jobs that need doing, and so help to alleviate the critical unemployment situation.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Jones (Northants, South): I was interested to hear what the Minister said about the figures involved in the order. I thought this indicated the considerable success of the Government in bringing about stability in local authority financing. However, when he said that this is the third increase we have had for the year 1970–71, I was not so sure that this was the right conclusion to draw.
He referred to the needs element amounting to some £7 million and mentioned the specific amount of £5 million for the police. This increase indicates the assiduity and sound judgment of those responsible for the preparation of these accounts.
This is the third time that we have had to adjust the figures, which leads one to doubt the accuracy of the previous statistics. I had thought to pay tribute first to the Government and then to those responsible for the figures, but I find myself in some difficulty in trying to do either.
In any case, the figures are microscopic in terms of the total expenditure involved, which is £3,593 million. In other words, the total of £12 million with

which we are concerned is very small compared with that overall sum. But I recall being advised at my mother's knee that if one looked after the pennies, the pounds would look after themselves. Last week the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) told us that he learned his football in the back streets of Birmingham. I was disappointed that he did not tonight tell us where he learned about finance, enabling him to bring a measured judgment to bear on complicated matters of this kind. Perhaps he will tell us on another occasion.
I suggest that the principle of looking after the pennies applies equally to public expenditure as to personal affairs. Even marginal savings are indicative of the effort that must be made to contain public expenditure. But there was not a word from the hon. Member for Small Heath about this. He said that we should make more resources available to local government and he gave examples of where this additional expenditure should go, but he did not bring to the discussion that care which must be adopted towards public money. Unless we take care and adopt a measure of control and accountability, we shall never ensure that the taxpayer and ratepayer gets value for money.
In the No. 2 Order we see increases for the current year of £152 million, and for 1972–73 of £187 million. Total costs for administration and wages are £308 million and £382 million respectively. This reflects the tremendous problems associated with inflation. In other words, it is in this adjustment of the figures that we see the problems facing the public purse in terms of the rapid inflation in the current year and the estimated inflation in the subsequent year.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite may contest this, but in my view there is no doubt that the fires of inflation were stoked materially by the ineffectiveness of the Socialist Government. They refused to bring hard bargaining to bear in wage awards, and I can bring evidence to support my view. In contrast to their efforts, the present Government have stood firm to a degree that hon. Gentlemen opposite never did. The Labour Government saw the need to damp down the fires of inflation but did practically nothing to do so.

Mr. Denis Howell: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that night after night we had orders on the prices and incomes legislation coming before the House, when he and his hon. Friends were voting against us on the ground that we ought not to have been interfering in the free movement of wages. That may have been right or wrong, but at least the hon. Gentleman ought to acknowledge that we were trying to do something about it.

Mr. Jones: The example which that Administration can cite is wage increases in the public sector. Nothing was done about that—

Mr. Denis Howell: Yes it was.

Mr. Jones: —by the late Socialist Administration. It was that that led to a 15 per cent. or 16 per cent. average level of wage increases in the public sector in the last round of negotiations.
From the present Government we see a much more responsible attitude. This is now reflected on both sides of the negotiating table. To some extent we have reversed the dangerous inflationary position which we were in last year, when the average level of wage settlements then, very soon after the Socialist defeat in June, 1970, was about 15 per cent. or 16 per cent. We have stood firm in the months since then and we now have settlements of about 7 per cent. or 8 per cent. That is clear justification for the success of the Government's determination and their policies in public sector wage negotiations.
I leave contentious matters now. Both sides of the House are concerned with the protection of the ratepayer and to see that he gets value for money. The domestic element introduced by the previous Government was a method of screening the domestic ratepayer from the escalation of costs borne by the ratepayer. This was a reflection of the inflation at that time. The Socialist Administration endeavour to protect the domestic ratepayer by introducing the domestic element. But what we now see, to a remarkably successful degree, is the stabilisation of public expenditure related to increased resources. That is the method by which ratepayers can be offered the best protection.
Regarding savings, outlined in the orders, it is significant to see the extent to which the lower levels of interest rates are reflected in both orders. I hope that it is not too controversial to say that the Government's record on interest rates is eminently and clearly more successful than that of the previous Administration. Two years ago the level of interest rates for borrowings by local authorities was between 8 per cent. and 10 per cent. The circumstances are quite different today and are reflected in the orders. We have seven-day money, at 8th December, at between 4 per cent. and 4ȕ per cent., and six-day money between 4½ per cent. and 4 9/16 per cent. That is half the average level of rates that we had for most of the time under the Socialist Administration. It is an immense saving of the interest content of public expenditure, which is shown in the estimates before us today. I remember a very prominent Socialist promising us a 3 per cent. rate of interest. What did we have in the years when the Socialists were in office?
I deal with some of the specific services that are referred to, firstly, with libraries, museums and art galleries. Total expenditure for the current year is £67½5 milion. In the next financial year it will be £71 million. I notice a balancing item of only £100,000, which may refer to fines on overdue books, the sale of post cards and perhaps the hire of records by those enlightened library committees who offer that facility to the public. We will not be able even to maintain the present level of library service, let alone enhance it, unless we ensure that private money goes into it.

Mr. Denis Howell: Good Lord!

Mr. Jones: The standards of this service which have been very high for many years, are in danger of not being maintained. At a meeting I had with members of the council of a certain county in the middle of England I made the case for private resources going into the library service. The council members were as surprised as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath is at my suggestion. They said, "We have the best library service in United Kingdom." However, after some discussion an elderly gentleman who was sitting on my immediate left said, "I am the chairman of the library committee. It is true that in the


past three years the standard of the library service in this country has not been maintained, because of lack of resources. We do not have anything like the number of books we should have in relation to the numbers of borrowers. Our standards are falling below those we should like to maintain". This experience is shared widely throughout the country.
Britain has a splendid library service, but a charge could well be justified, particularly for books of fiction. I believe that people would readily pay a charge to hire books of fiction. I do not say that this applies to the children's section, to research facilities, or to serious books. If we wish, not only to maintain the present standards of the service, but to increase them, we should be bold enough to examine the significance of private resources in the library service. By so doing, we could ensure greater fairness to all authors, some of whom come off badly under the present system.
That is one example of the protection of ratepayers. Another concerns sewerage and sewage disposal. Circular 92/71 was introduced last week relating to the establishment of regional water authorities. The substantial shift of responsibility from local government services to the new regional water authorities will have significant effects on the type of rate support grant order we shall see in future. As I understand it, the circular says that all trunk sewers will be taken over by the new authorities. The responsibility of local authorities the subject of rate support grant expenditure will be greatly reduced. As new charging systems must be worked out for the new authorities for sewerage and water abstraction, it should be ensured that the remaining local authority services are able to charge industrial and commercial undertakings for effluent discharged into the sewerage system. I am sure that we shall look for added resources for sewerage and sewage disposal, not leaving the substantial responsibility for this expenditure on the domestic ratepayer, which is what happens now—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman very considerable latitude in discussing this matter. I would

be grateful if he would come back more particularly to the Order.

Mr. Jones: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am referring to the items which are specifically referred to in the No. 2 Order with regard to sewerage and sewage disposal, which relates to a total expenditure of £144 million per annum so far as the ratepayer and taxpayer is concerned, and the offset amounts total for the current year is a very small sum of £1·7 million. I think there is a substantial case for ensuring that the expenditure for sewerage is more equitably shared between the domestic ratepayer and the industrial and commercial user. I think this applies to the refuse service as well, for which the total expenditure is over £110 million, and here the figure of offset is only £100,000.
With local government reorganisation I hope we shall see all the advantages of increased techniques used in refuse disposal. I am sure there are many sophisticated improvements which could be adopted. I am thinking particularly of incinerators. I know that considerable sums are being spent by way of research particularly at Warren Spring laboratories at Stevenage. Some of us were in an all-party group which had a look round those laboratories recently, where they are associating their research with material recovery. Here I think there is a further field for a more equitable share of expenditure in refuse disposal.
I hope that I have touched on what hon. Members will consider to be important issues. I am sorry if it is felt that I am detaining the House too long, but this is an opportunity that arises only once a year to discuss the matter in broad terms. I hope we shall see further efforts on the part of this Administration to ensure the best possible use of resources and to look for ways and means by which some of the expenditure can be more fairly shared.

11.48 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: The hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) mentioned many matters which are of importance and of interest, and he is right to raise them at any time when the opportunity presents itself. They could well be raised in a whole day's debate, particularly such controversial matters as water resources,


for which we are told legislation may be introduced next year and which may divide the House right across, not on party lines but on other lines.
The hon. Gentleman told us that he was taught at his mother's knee that if one looks after the pennies the pounds will take care of themselves. I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) where he acquired his knowledge of local government or of anything else for that matter. I should have thought that the back streets of Birmingham. Manchester or Liverpool would be as good a place to look after the pennies, including the ratepayers' pennies, as anywhere else.
The hon. Gentleman defended his Government very ably, and perhaps a little vociferously at times. He may be right when he says that the Government have been standing firm for a period, but it seems to me that in the first 15 months they were facing in one direction and that in the last three months they have been facing in an entirely different direction. Before they were a "cut Government expenditure" Government, they were a "cut local authority expenditure" Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer delighted in saying that he had taken £3 million out of the local authority kitty. Now he has, quite rightly, in the last two months asked local authorities to spend more money, and he has been urged by his hon. Friends to do so. But this is and must be a completely different operation and different policy from the one which they had in the first 15 months.

Mr. Arthur Jones: I do not see a contradiction in what I said. I am happy about expenditure, provided that we get productivity with it. That is the key to sound use of resources.

Mr. Ogden: I do not disagree with that. I am only pointing out that, if standing firm is the issue, the Government stood firm for the first 15 months in one direction, and for the last three months they have faced the other way.
Hon. Members who have taken an interest in these Statutory Instruments over the years know that the debates during the time of the Labour Government were usually led from the Opposition Front Bench by the hon. Member for

Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), now the Minister, and for the Government by our late friend James MacColl. I am sure that James MacColl would have been more than pleased to think that his part in that partnership had been taken over by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell). The original partnership of Widnes and Crosby, both from the Merseyside area, was, more often than not, a sparring partnership, and I suspect that the sparring part has probably now been increased by my hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath.
My hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath referred to the suggestion which has come from Merseyside, from three Labour members of the corporation, that instead of simply paying people unemployment benefit we should pay the money into the local authority to supplement moneys spent on large projects of public work within Liverpool, this being a useful way to spend public money in a worthwhile way. This proposal should be considered. The Minister knows the circumstances on Merseyside now, with 52,000 people unemployed—6·5 per cent. in November and 6·4 per cent. in October. In the Liverpool travel-to-work area, it is 7·2 per cent. In Liverpool alone, there were 24,000 unemployed in October, and 25,000 in November. The situation will get worse, and there is a hard winter ahead.
We are not asking the Government to provide help which we are not trying to provide ourselves. The Minister knows that, three or four years ago, at the time of the Labour-controlled council, the Liverpool authority, under Alderman Sefton, raised or used the product of a 6d. rate to provide more work in the Liverpool area. The product of the old penny rate in Liverpool today is £262,000, so a 2½p rate would yield almost £1½ million. At that time, the idea was to provide employment in the short term, but, as it was a new venture, most of the money was used to provide capital equipment—a television camera for a school, facilities for a hostel, and so on—which helped in the long term but did little in the short term.
The proposal coming up now is that the Liverpool Corporation be urged to provide the product of a 2½p rate, that is, £l½ million, to be used wholly inside


Liverpool. It would be money from Liverpool ratepayers to provide employment for Liverpool ratepayers. On the basis of an average wage of £20 a week—which is not too much—such a sum would provide work for almost 1,500 people for the whole 12 months. This time, it could be used not necessarily for equipment but for the sort of work which can be done mainly by unskilled labour, the sort of work which the Secretary of State for the Environment has been telling us is basic work which ought to be done and can be done in the short term, work employing people's bodies rather than machines and capital equipment. There are parks and council estates—at Gillmoss, Croxteth, Dovecot and Clubmoor, for instance—where there seems to be more grass in the gutters than on the lawns.
I take it that, under the Rate Support Grant Order, there is nothing in law to prevent ratepayers' money being used for this purpose, and nothing to prevent the controlling authority on the city council from using it to provide direct employment in that way, giving practical support in those terms.
The Minister will know the saying that a little cash is worth a great deal of sympathy. We hope to have some suggestions at least that cash will be forthcoming as well as sympathy from him and the Government.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: With the leave of the House, I should like to deal with some of the points raised in the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-ants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) complained about the No. 1 Order being the third time the figures have had to be adjusted, but this partially meets one of the points made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) on catching up with the increases as quickly as possible. The order covers the period from November, 1970 to March, 1971, and it follows from the fact that this cycle of increase orders happens in November that we cannot take into account increases that occur since that period. In 1970ߝ71 there was the £17·6 million increase in pay awards, mainly to the police. Other costs increased by £15·8 million, making a total increase

in expenditure over that period of £33·4 million.
My hon. Friend mentioned the saving on interest rates, which brought that figure down. The net result was an increase in relevant expenditure for that short period of five months of £21½ million. Taking 57 per cent. of that, we had to take £12 million into account. Against that, the specific grants were £5 million, reducing it to the figure of £7 million which I mentioned before. So there is some virtue in the fact that we have brought in a third order to catch up with the increases over those five months. It works out as only a small figure—the £7 million—but it was something which we should give to local authorities for the increase in that period.
My hon. Friend praised the Government for containment of inflation, whereas the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath complained of the Government's failure to deal with rising prices. All I am concerned with in the order is to take inflation into account. Perhaps I shall be forgiven if I do not go into the argument about how inflation was caused or who was to blame for it. In the Order I want to return to the local authorities their increased costs caused by inflation. That is what the orders do, and the figures are agreed by both central and local government.
My hon. Friend referred in particular to the offset savings in respect of interest rates, and they are very significant. He gives me an opportunity to correct two figures I gave rather hurriedly in my first speech, when I said that the offsetting savings attributable to the Courts Act and the Education (Milk) Act were £29·9 million for 1971–72 and £39·2 million for 1972–73. That was the total offsetting savings for those two years. In respect of the Courts Act it will be £3·4 million for 1971–72 and £14·7 million for 1972–73, and in respect of the Education (Milk) Act it will be £5·4 million for 1971–72 and £8·3 million for 1972–73. I must be excused for not discussing the merits of the school milk situation. I am concerned only with taking into account the figures which are estimated as a saving under that Act, and which have been agreed between central and local government.
The hon. Members for Birmingham, Small Heath and Liverpool, West Derby


(Mr. Ogden) raised the question of the unemployment situation and the Government's request to local authorities to bring forward work which will be labour-intensive. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby for his kind remarks about those who took part in the previous debates. It is sad to me to have lost a very great friend in James MacColl. Although we used to argue fiercely across this Dispatch Box, we were the greatest of friends outside the Chamber.
Schemes which local authorities are bringing forward to meet the unemployment situation are mainly financed by capital, and the Government are giving the authority for local authorities to borrow the capital sums to meet any schemes which accord with the rules laid down. The interest on these borrowings is not taken into account in these Orders. I could not by law take it into account in such orders. I would have to ask the House first to amend the Local Government Act, 1966, if I wished to do so.
The additional loan charges arising from infra-structure programmes will be taken into account in the order which will permit us to take them into account—that is, the order for the following year after the existing order has been completed, the Rate Support Grant Order for 1973–74. That is, according to the 1966 Act, the first occasion on which we can take them into account, unless we amend the Act.
The estimated increase of expenditure by local government in loan charges is only a very small figure compared with the total amount of local government expenditure. In 1971–72, it is only £500,000; for 1972–73, it is £2·2 million. These figures are very small in relation to the relevant expenditure as a whole. I do not think that small amount would be a deterrent to local authorities in raising the money to carry out infrastructure schemes. Most of them get a little back in the resources element. It is only a little; in the case of Liverpool, it is only 19 per cent., which is a small part of the city's total expenditure.
The proposal that the local authorities should not bother about borrowing capital for this purpose but should merely pay out of their rate funds for increasing the employment of labour is interesting. We are anxious that any

infra-structure scheme should be encouraged. I give an undertaking that I am prepared to discuss this with the Liverpool Corporation to see if there is any way of fitting in its proposal with an infrastructure scheme. Having a Treasury Minister sitting beside me, I say that with some trepidation, but we can at least discuss it to see whether there is some way of permitting such a scheme in Liverpool.

Mr. Ogden: Whether the hon. Gentleman has a Treasury Minister sitting beside him or not, he is from Merseyside, and as a Merseyside M.P. he is quite capable of taking on a Treasury Minister at any time, whichever side he sits on.

Mr. Page: It is sometimes a disadvantage to be the Member for an area which one is trying to benefit—I find that in my constituency at times. But I will look at the scheme to see whether there is any way in which we can promote these infrastructure schemes without putting too much red tape round them and saying we cannot help.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Rate Support Grant (Increase) (No. 1) Order 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th November, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Rate Support Grant (Increase) (No. 2) Order 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th November, be approved.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (TRINDAD AND TOBAGO)

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Trinidad and Tobago) Order 1971 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 3rd December.—[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fortescue.]

EASINGTON (UNEMPLOYMENT)

12.6 a.m.

Mr. J. D. Dormand: The Easington constituency consists of a number of villages and a new town, Peterlee, about three-quarters completed. I mention that fact because it reflects the nature of employment in the area. Most of the villages have at some time had a coal mine, while the new town was established to provide, among other things, alternative employment to coal mining, particularly when that industry began to contract. Not so many years ago there were 10 pits in the constituency, and an embryo new town with no industry: now there are six pits and a nearly completed new town with insufficient industry to provide employment for my constituents.
I turn, first, to the position of coal mining in the area. We have suffered four closures, and I understand that one of the remaining six pits—Shotton Colliery—is likely to close early next year. If it does, the closure will add several hundred more men to the already too high total of unemployed miners, now some 450, whose future is very bleak except for a possibility which I shall mention later. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some information about the future of Shotton Colliery, which is of vital importance to my constituents and to their families.
The coal industry has long been the shuttlecock of Britain's economy. The traumatic effect of so many pit closures in recent years may have caused a loss of morale amongst employees from which the industry will never fully recover. The success of the recruiting campaign earlier this year can, therefore, only be described as astonishing. This is due, I believe, not so much to a lack of alternative employment—although that is undoubtedly a contributory cause of the situation—as to the loyalty of the miner to his industry.
It is not possible in any walk of life to find a more loyal or dedicated worker than the miner. Heaven knows why this should be the case, because coal mining must be the most disagreeable and the most difficult of all jobs. As a regular visitor to the pits in my area, and as one who comes from a mining family, I

say that miners should have £20 a week merely for going down the pit, quite apart from what they do when they get down there.
Because of the tolerance of the miner in the face of great uncertainty, I believe that the time has come for the Government and the National Coal Board to say to him, in a message loud and clear, and without equivocation, "We shall guarantee stability in the mining industry for the foreseeable future." I am aware of the difficulties and problems that such a policy would entail, but I believe that the country as a whole owes it to the mining community. If miners and all who work in the industry can be convinced that the Government really mean that, the country will have one of the most efficient coal industries in the world and will, at the same time, provide a solid and continuing core of employment in mining areas.
The Queen's Speech said:
…my Government's first care will be to increase employment…".
As with other aspects of their policy, the Government are failing miserably in providing jobs. The present disgraceful national figure of a million unemployed is more than reflected in Easington, where the percentage rates for men and women respectively are 8·1 and 4. On 8th November, 1,850 males and 272 females were registered as unemployed. On 3rd December, there were no fewer than 284 school leavers out of work, which is a disastrous situation for young people. As one whose work was concerned with young people before coming to this House, I know the potentially dangerous results which the lack of a job can have on people of that age. Against that gloomy picture, we had only 148 notified vacancies on 4th November.
The figures that I have given show the serious situation in which we are placed. On Friday of last week, when I returned home to my constituency and picked up the local newspaper, I read that two firms in Peterlee new town were to close. They are small firms, but, in our dismal position, every job counts. I believe that that demonstrates that matters will continue to deteriorate.
On 2nd November, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry


was dealing with the problem of unemployment in Hartlepools. He said:
We all know that underlying the figures and the very real problems there is the greater and much more important factor of the come and go of industrial activity in the world at large, the boom-slump or the recession-inflation cycle, and that this is in fact the cause of the present difficulty and not regional policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November, 1971; Vol. 825, c. 160.]
I do no subscribe to that entirely, though I believe that, in a capitalist world, it must be true to a larger or smaller extent. But if that is the case, the basic answer must be greater intervention by the State in an attempt to correct the imbalance caused by free market forces.
If the problem of unemployment is to be solved in my constituency, there must be more help from the Government. In this respect, I add my plea to the many made by hon. Members representing constituencies in the North-East for the return of investment grants. After all the evidence produced since the Government announced their decision to abolish them, there can be no doubt that such grants make a more than effective contribution to the solution of the unemployment problem.
When we debated the problems of the regions last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) produced a great deal of evidence to support the statements that I have just made. At this late hour, I shall not repeat that evidence.
The same strong case can be made for the retention of the regional employment premium beyond 1974. I implore the Government to think again on these two matters.
I said just now that we in Easington must have more help from the Government. But I suppose that most hon. Members could say the same on behalf of their constituencies. However, mine is unique in making the claim that we have the science centre in the new town of Peterlee. If that centre develops as it should, it will be second only to the North Carolina science centre. The last Government approved in principle the proposal that Peterlee should be the science centre for the North, and the present Government support that view. So far, progress has been reasonably satisfactory. But development is now at

the stage where, if success is to be achieved, Governmental assistance in tangible form must be given to supplement what the Peterlee Development Corporation and other bodies have achieved by their own efforts. I have asked dozens of Questions in the House about projects coming to Peterlee—Government offices, Government factories, forensic laboratories, the Centre for Transport and Land Use Studies and so on—all without reply. I have come to the conclusion that this Government have little or no interest in my area. Maybe it is because they pick up so few votes. With their miserable performance, they will get even fewer on the next occasion.
I make one more plea for at least one Government research institute, or one sponsored by the Government, to be placed at Peterlee. The Minister may not know that the universities of Newcastle and Durham have recently, within the last two weeks, produced a plan for a research centre at Peterlee. I hope he will investigate these proposals as a matter of urgency and provide the money which will undoubtedly be needed. A research centre will not solve the unemployment problem, but it would give prestige to the area and attract labour-intensive industries. It is of the greatest importance that we should be able to build up a diversity of industry.
May I appeal to the Minister to speak to his right hon. Friend who has responsibility for roads. In County Durham we have the motorway running through the centre of the country and on the eastern side, running through my constituency, we have the A19, which has recently been developed to something like motorway standards. Both roads are of increasing value to the economy of the North-East. For my part of the county the essential requirement is an east-west link road between these roads. Such a road is vital. The proposals for future road development in Durham are now with the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend. The link road has the strongest support of the Durham County Council; it is one of its top priorities. If the Government's statements about freedom for local authorities mean anything the Minister should accept this recommendation. I am convinced that such a link road will make a significant contribution towards solving our unemployment problem.
In this sombre picture I have painted, there is a gleam of light which could go a long way towards solving our problems. The Minister will know of negotiations which are well advanced for the establishment of a large engineering factory in Peterlee. I do not wish to mention names or details in case that upsets what might be a rather fine balance, but I understand the firm will provide several thousand jobs for men within a few years. I implore the Minister to ensure that his Department, the Treasury and any other Department give every possible help to bring about the successful completion of this proposal. I hope that I am pushing at an open door. If a major project such as this is lost to my area through Government intervention then all hell will be let loose in Easington and I will be leading it.
We in the North-East have every reason to be bitter, sceptical and cynical following the establishment of the value-added tax office at Southend; after the announcement last week that the Inland Revenue Office is not to be established at Washington and because of the relaxation of I.D.C. policy since this Government came into power.
May I refer to a national problem which arises in my constituency from time to time and which has occurred again recently. I refer to the restriction on the range of incentives available to those firms wishing to expand after having received the full range of incentives offered by the Government. I fail to see why there should be a reduction in the financial assistance offered to such firms, firms which have proved their loyalty and worth to us. In the difficult circumstances which exist in my constituency, they are greatly valued. Surely the only criterion should be whether new jobs are created, and as these firms are to expand it is more certain that they will remain with us, unlike some of the fly-by-night concerns we have experienced. I have written to the Secretary of State about this, and if the Government are serious about wanting to reduce unemployment they should realise that an alteration to the rules and regulations governing this matter will make a significant contribution to a reduction in the number of unemployed.
Under pressure, the Government gave my constituency special development area

status earlier this year. It is too soon to say whether it will be successful, but I acknowledge that this was a necessary first step in tackling the problem of unemployment. We anxiously await the results.
I have tried to be constructive, and I hope that in his reply the Under-Secretary of State will be equally constructive in trying to solve the terrible problem of unemployment in Easington.

12.21 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): I must immediately refute the allegation by the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) that the Government have little or no interest in the Easington area. I can assure him that we certainly do have an interest in that area, as we have in all parts of the country which have a particularly high rate of unemployment.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no complacency on this side of the House over the unemployment figures, or the extent of the difficulties which face this or any other Government in attempting to achieve a satisfactory level of employment. We are well aware of the difficulties in Easington. The November unemployment rate of 8.1 per cent. in the Peterlee and Wingate areas is far too high. I must stress that we are very concerned about what this means in terms of personal problems and hardships for families whose breadwinners are out of work, and for the social fabric of the area.
We must be specially concerned about the problem of young people, some of whom are still seeking their first job. Fortunately, the great majority of school leavers are now employed, but even so, on 8th November, 129 school leavers were still unemployed out of a total of 1,100 who left school at the end of the summer term. My Department is paying half the costs of the special industrial training board's schemes providing off-the-job training for youngsters who have not been found apprenticeships. Six boys from the Easington area have been accepted for an Engineering Training Board course and two for a Road Transport Training Board course. We are also paying the costs and allowances for short semi-skilled training courses mainly for 17-year-olds at colleges of further education or employers' establishments.
I in no way wish to belittle the needs of the Easington area or to attempt to make out the situation as being anything other than serious. However, it is only fair to say that the picture is not quite as black as the hon. Gentleman painted it tonight. Although unemployment in Peterlee and Wingate has risen in the past 12 months, it has not risen proportionately by nearly as much as the average for the country as a whole. The number of notified vacancies in the area in November was double what it was a year ago, and we can all take some comfort from that.
There are two basic causes of Easing-ton's unemployment and shortage of new jobs. One is recessional, resulting from the hitherto low level of demand in the economy as a whole. The other is Easington's heavy traditional dependence on coal mining and the gradual running down of that industry in the area. As the House well knows, the Government have been taking steps for 12 months or more, through tax reductions and incentives, and through many forms of direct spending, to encourage investment, increased demand and output, and to bring additional employment over the whole country. Already there are clear signs that these general measures are taking effect.
In addition, we have given various forms of special help to the assisted areas. For example, we have given them much higher grants for housing improvement, which will cost £46 million. Then there is a large programme of infrastructure works amounting to £160 million for all assisted areas. Of the £80 million which goes to England, between a third and a half will go to the Northern Region. Already £27 million has been allocated to the Northern area. This includes £400,000 for hospitals in the Sunderland and Hartlepools Hospital Management Committee area, to which Easington belongs. Half a million pounds goes to schools in the Durham County Education Authority area, and Durham County gets £435,000 for improvements to principal roads and nearly £2 million for trunk roads. This shows that we care.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the link road. This matter is being considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who will be announcing his full programme for new roads in due course. I

understand from my right hon. Friend that there is still scope for additional schemes within the infrastructure programme, and he will be glad to consider any further proposals which satisfy the criteria.
Turning to the industrial structure, Easington has for a very long time been a coal mining area. To a large extent, it still is, and because of the efficiency and reserves of the pits in the area it will continue to be. The hon. Gentleman rightly praised the loyalty and reliability of the miners. It is not for me to talk about the future of mining because it is not my Department's responsibility, but we are well aware of the importance of mining and the mining community.
It is as well to remind ourselves occasionally that coal mining is still a great and important industry in this country which will continue to provide the livelihood of many people. Nevertheless, there have been colliery closures in Easington, as in other areas, and there have been new industries and new forms of employment coming to the area. The result has been more variety of jobs and less dependence on coal mining. In 1961, 75 per cent. of male employees were in coal mining. By 1970 the proportion had fallen to 60 per cent. The rundown in coal mining naturally accounts for some of the unemployment in the area, though perhaps not as much as one would expect. In September, 322 men, or 25 per cent. of all males wholly unemployed in the Peterlee and Wingate area, were unemployed through planned reductions in colliery manpower.
To the best of my knowledge, no closure is imminent. The hon. Gentleman mentioned one possible closure. I am willing to look into that matter and consult my hon. Friend responsible in the Department of Trade and Industry, but my information is that there is no imminent closure. The situation has improved in mining. There has been no colliery closure since January, 1970, and there is no closure imminent. There have been a few labour force cuts at existing collieries, but between June, 1970, and September, 1971, only 92 redundant miners came on to the unemployed register for the first time, following their redundancy. In the same period the number of ex-miners who entered fresh jobs was 103.
It was because of the high unemployment and the problems of structural employment changes that Easington was included in the Northern Development Area. In February of this year we went a step further and made the Easington area, including the New Town of Peterlee, a special development area with all the financial and other advantages in attracting industry which this confers. We did this because we realised the situation; we were not pressurised into doing it. The result has been a quickening of inquiries from potential developers.
Since February the Peterlee Development Corporation has had 31 inquiries compared with 23 in the previous nine months and several very promising possibilities are under discussion at the moment. I do not want to overplay this, but it is encouraging. Of the existing firms at Peterlee one is at present building an extension and another is about to start one. Two other firms have applied for extra land. I understand also that the Peterlee Development Corporation is about to build two more advance factories to meet the demand which will surely come. Since June, 1970, the corporation has allocated three advance factories totalling 56,000 square feet. Since 1968 a total of 19 industrial development certificates has been granted for the Peterlee and Wingate area. covering 428,000 square feet and an estimated 1,380 new jobs. Included in these figures are six I.D.C.s so far this year for 130,000 square feet and 420 jobs.
I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman mention some other development. I will certainly look into this. I have not the exact details of it, but if it will provide extra employment we shall certainly welcome it.

Mr. Dormand: Is the Under-Secretary of State referring to the university research centre or to the engineering factory?

Mr. Smith: I understood the hon. Gentleman talked about an engineering factory. I do not have the details, and it would be entirely wrong of me to commit myself, but I will certainly look into that. It was news to me when the hon. Gentleman mentioned it.
He mentioned that, in his view, we ought to reinstitute investment grants and

regional employment premiums. These are matters about which I know the hon. Gentleman has been very assiduous in asking Questions, but I honestly do not think these things are the cure for unemployment. He referred to the V.A.T. centre, and he questioned my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about this, and my right hon. Friend explained on 9th November that the work of V.A.T., apart from that at Southend, would be spread round the country in regional offices. I think this is the reason the hon. Gentleman has not got it at Peterlee. I will certainly look at the question of the research centre and call my Government colleagues' attention to that. This was something I was not entirely aware of. I did know about the science centre. The Development Corporation has gone to a great deal of trouble to promote the concept of a science centre, an imaginative concept which, naturally, the Government hope will succeed.
I think that what I have tried to say in these few minutes makes it abundantly clear that we are taking a wide variety of steps both to deal with the slack in the economy in general and to move towards a solution of the long-term structural problems of Easington and the other areas of high unemployment. These problems, as the hon. Member knows very well, cannot be easily or quickly solved. No one would pretend that they can be. If they could have been solved suddenly, they would have been solved by the previous Administration, but we believe that by giving Easington special development area status we have given the area a powerful advantage, and I am sure that we shall see the benefits of it before long when the flow of investment and industrial development increases.
I am confident that, despite all these problems, we shall get the drop in unemployment and the rapid increase in prosperity in Easington we all want to see. I am sure the hon. Member will be the first to acknowledge that the measures taken by the Government will have worked for what is, admittedly, a difficult area, so that it can have a much brighter future—Peterlee and the whole Easington area.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to One o'clock.